NAS/RS Report on Climate Change: Evidence and Causes

Climate change is one of the defining issues of our time. It is now more certain than ever, based on many lines of evidence, that humans are changing Earth’s climate. – Royal Society

The U.S. National Academies of Science and the U.K. Royal Society have issued a joint report Climate Change Evidence and Causes. [link] to RS website; [link] to NAS website.

The RS website provides this statement on the background of the report:

The Royal Society and the US National Academy of Sciences, with their similar missions to promote the use of science to benefit society and to inform critical policy debates, offer this new publication as a key reference document for decision makers, policy makers, educators, and other individuals seeking authoritative answers about the current state of climate change science. The publication makes clear what is well established, where consensus is growing, and where there is still uncertainty. It is written and reviewed by a UK-US team of leading climate scientists. It echoes and builds upon the long history of climate-related work from both national science academies, as well as the newest climate change assessment from the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Outside experts asked to comment on the report noted that it lacks new information, but neatly packages mainstream climate science for a general audience. “Ultimately, [it is] rather ho-hum, and pretty redundant to everything else that is out there,” Roger Pielke Jr., a climate policy analyst and professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder, told NBC News in an email.

Ho-hummery aside, the National Academy of Sciences and Royal Society were compelled to make a statement, according to Michael Mann, a climate scientist at Pennsylvania State University in University Park. “Sadly, in today’s political environment, where climate change denial is pervasive at our highest levels of government, it seems that the message is not being heard,” he told NBC News via email.

In fact, from Mann’s perspective, the report is too conservative. For example, he said, it fails to acknowledge that climate models often underestimate the rate of change. “This is clearly true with respect to Arctic sea ice, where the precipitous decline seen in the observations over the past several decades is way beyond where the models generally conclude we should be,” he said.

“Uncertainty,” Fung said, “does not challenge my certainty about the fact the planet will warm.”

Lets look at question 10: Does the recent slowdown of warming mean that climate change is no longer happening? Here is what the NAS/RS has to say:

No. Since the very warm year 1998 that followed the strong 1997-98 El Niño, the increase in average surface temperature has slowed relative to the previous decade of rapid temperature increases. Despite the slower rate of warming the 2000s were warmer than the 1990s. A short-term slowdown in the warming of Earth’s surface does not invalidate our understanding of long-term changes in global temperature arising from human-induced changes in greenhouse gases.

Decades of slow warming as well as decades of accelerated warming occur naturally in the climate system. Decades that are cold or warm compared to the long-term trend are seen in the observations of the past 150 years and also captured by climate models. Because the atmosphere stores very little heat, surface temperatures can be rapidly affected by heat uptake elsewhere in the climate system and by changes in external influences on climate (such as particles formed from material lofted high into the atmosphere from volcanic eruptions). More than 90% of the heat added to Earth is absorbed by the oceans and penetrates only slowly into deep water. A faster rate of heat penetration into the deeper ocean will slow the warming seen at the surface and in the atmosphere, but by itself will not change the long-term warming that will occur from a given amount of CO2. For example, recent studies show that some heat comes out of the ocean into the atmosphere during warm El Niño events, and more heat penetrates to ocean depths in cold La Niñas. Such changes occur repeatedly over timescales of decades and longer. An example is the major El Niño event in 1997–98 when the globally averaged air temperature soared to the highest level in the 20th century as the ocean lost heat to the atmosphere, mainly by evaporation.

Recent studies have also pointed to a number of other small cooling influences over the past decade or so. These include a relatively quiet period of solar activity and a measured increase in the amount of aerosols (reflective particles) in the atmosphere due to the cumulative effects of a succession of small volcanic eruptions. The combination of these factors, both the interaction between the ocean and the atmosphere and the forcing from the Sun and aerosols, is thought likely to be responsible for the recent slowdown in surface warming.

Despite the decadal slowdown in the rise of average surface temperature, a longer-term warming trend is still evident. Each of the last three decades was warmer than any other decade since widespread thermometer measurements were introduced in the 1850s. Record heatwaves have occurred in Australia (January 2013), USA (July 2012), in Russia (summer 2010), and in Europe (summer 2003). The continuing effects of the warming climate are also seen in the increasing trends in ocean heat content and sea level, as well as in the continued melting of Arctic sea ice, glaciers and the Greenland ice sheet.

The slowdown in warming is the hottest issue in the public debate on climate change. The NAS/RS posed the question poorly. Everyone agrees that climate change is happening; the issue is whether humans are the dominant contributor. In their answer, no mention is made of the growing disagreement between climate models surface temperature observations. Recent research over the last 6 months provides support for a dominant influence from the shift in ocean circulation patterns in the pacific, with forcing from the Sun and aerosols playing a minor role. The implications of this for our understanding of climate sensitivity and attribution of the warming in the latter portion of the 20th century is not mentioned. I will have another post on the pause coming in the next day or two.

Another question: 12. Why is Arctic sea ice reducing while Antarctic sea ice is not? Excerpts from their answer:

Sea ice extent is affected by winds and ocean currents as well as temperature. Sea ice in the partly-enclosed Arctic Ocean seems to be responding directly to warming, while changes in winds and in the ocean seem to be dominating the patterns of climate and sea ice change in the ocean around Antarctica.

Sea ice in the Antarctic has shown a slight increase in extent since 1979 overall, although some areas, such as that to the west of the Antarctic Peninsula, have experienced a decrease. Changes in surface wind patterns around the continent have contributed to the Antarctic pattern of sea ice change while ocean factors such as the addition of cool fresh water from melting ice shelves may also have played a role. The wind changes include a recent strengthening of westerly winds, which reduces the amount of warm air from low latitudes penetrating into the southern high latitudes and alters the way in which ice moves away from the continent. The change in winds may result in part from the effects of stratospheric ozone depletion over Antarctica (i.e., the ozone hole, a phenomenon that is distinct from the human-driven changes in long-lived greenhouse gases discussed in this document). However, short-term trends in the Southern Ocean, such as those observed, can readily occur from natural variability of the atmosphere, ocean and sea ice system.

The IPCC AR5 said the increase in Antarctic sea ice increase was poorly understood. Recent research shows that ozone hole cannot explain the sea ice decrease (actually works in the opposite direction). And natural variability can explain the Antarctic sea ice, but apparently not the Arctic sea ice?

If you read the answers to the questions, all of them except for #13 on extreme weather events, come across as far more certain than the IPCC AR5 itself. Uncertainty is mainly addressed in 18. What are scientists doing to address key uncertainties in our understanding of the climate system? Excerpt:

Science is a continual process of observation, understanding, modelling, testing and prediction. The prediction of a long-term trend in global warming from increasing greenhouse gases is robust and has been confirmed by a growing body of evidence. Nevertheless, understanding (for example, of cloud dynamics, and of climate variations on centennial and decadal timescales and on regional-to-local spatial scales) remains incomplete. All of these are areas of active research.

No mention is made of the major uncertainties associated with responding to the other 19 questions.

JC reflections

The report scores points in terms of readability. Compared to the turgid prose of the IPCC reports, this is much more clearly written. I also like the question format. Most of these are pretty good questions, but not as good as the questions asked by the APS committee.

However, the stated goal was to make clear what is well established, where consensus is growing, and where there is still uncertainty. In this, they failed . The ‘more certain the ever’ is belied by the IPCC AR5 itself, as summarized in my recent Senate testimony. And their strategy of making overconfident answers to nearly all of the questions, then discussing the ‘uncertainty issue’ in a superficial way at the end of the report is flat out misleading, and will reinforce the public distrust of ‘establishment’ assessments of climate science.

An absolute disgrace. These people know about science and know about uncertainty. This is just so biased and a misrepresentation of the state of current knowledge it clearly shows both these “learned societies ” have little respect for the fundamentals of objective science and the scientific method.

Whether the particular members think misleading the public is the “politically correct” thing to do to “save the planet” despite lack of proper scientific evidence, or see it a ensuring revenue for future research, we can only guess.

Greg these are the people who through the 90s and noughties told the world the world was going to burn up because or AGW with all sorts of dire consequences. Since none of their forecast disasters has transpired they are now left with a worrying problem. The politicians are still buying into their prognostications but are becoming more vaguely aware that all is not well. The “pause”, the continual changes of what AGW represents to what we are currently observing, cold weather, hot weather and mild weather all described as evidence of global warming. The atmosphere heating was a sign of global warming, then it stopped and out comes the (essentially true) statement that the heat should be absorbed by the oceans, with no noticeable increase in ocean temperatures, because the heat is “hiding” in the deep oceans. And so on and so on. This drip drip of continuous failure of projection and predictions along with a seemingly tireless ability to move goalposts is being noticed by the politicos, and worse the general public. So what we’re seeing here is as Captain Mainwaring described a last ditch German attack in “Dad’s Army”, “The last twitchings of the wounded AGW beast”. These scientists have left themselves nowhere to go and all they’re left with is edicts from the bunker telling us “It really will get worse. Honest.”
We will have to wait for them to retire before we get back to scientific sanity on this issue.

“Recent studies have also pointed to a number of other small cooling influences over the past decade or so. These include a relatively quiet period of solar activity and a measured increase in the amount of aerosols (reflective particles) in the atmosphere due to the cumulative effects of a succession of small volcanic eruptions. The combination of these factors, both the interaction between the ocean and the atmosphere and the forcing from the Sun and aerosols, is thought likely to be responsible for the recent slowdown in surface warming.”

All the these recent _excuses_ for the recent pause in warming must equally be applied to explain late 20th c. rise if they are to be invoked.

What is risible, is that they wish to selectively use them to explain the cooling without accepting they must explain an equal part of the “catastrophic” warming.

This is the scientific equivalent of wanting to have your cake and eat it.

Make up your mind guys. You can’t have it both ways and still pretend to be talking science.

“Our models gave inaccurate predictions because of effects we didn’t include. But we added those effects so now the models include everything and are perfect again!”

At least until the next predictive failure.

The temptation to go back to explain a failed experiment and fix things post hoc and pretend those fixes happened before the experiment and that you knew all along what to expect is always great. However, most scientists I know have enough integrity to not engage in after-the-fact revisionist history. Either that or they are smart enough not to get caught doing it.

But here we have a field (climate science) that is pretending the models that self-evidently failed to predict climate change on a decade scale were actually just fine, once we add these post hoc factors that are just the right size to explain the discrepancy.

I think the problem is that not all the interactions between the sun and the earth are taken into account. there is experimentation showing radioactive decay varies with relation to the sun, but the IPCC et al, only want to account for the .01% of variation in solar activity. That ignores the effect of CME’s on our magnetic system. Ignores the effect of our magnetic system on varying birefringment (scattering of light passing through magnetized ice particles). It ignores the fact that the sun and the earth’s radioactive decay are connected in a way, we don’t even have the science to put a name on with confidence, let alone accurately quantify. it also explains how one type of atomic clock can be more accurate than another. different amounts of variation in their decay rates. it also explains why we took so long to realize decay rates vary, because until we have more accurate clocks, we can’t see variations that take length of time into account. So with decay rate being a variable based on the sun, to have the sun’s variation of influence limited to .01% ignores the need to quantify the non EM portion of the sun-earth interactions. CO2 related warming proponents would be more able to dismiss the sun, when it is believed to be so limited.

This report is an unfortunate step backwards relative to the IPCC AR5 itself, and the previous RS report Climate change: a summary of the science which I thought was pretty good.

The September 2010 RS report was partly as a result of 43 Fellows who complained about the previous effort, put together with the help of Bob Ward. One can’t help wondering if someone somewhere wasn’t happy with the more honest, restrained version and decided to bypass the same independent-minded fellows with this joint effort with NAS.

Quite possible , for you need to consider that the people who make up the leadership of these organisation often do not well represent its members. For these people are motivated by nature to play political games and are quite happy to the type of administrative management given the power this can bring, that most members would find boring. Those really doing science simply do not have the time to take part in these things, but those that ‘motivated’ to get the ‘right’ message across can always find the time. Remember that to date not one organisation that has come out in support of AGW has actual asked its membership for their views.

20. If emissions of greenhouse gases were stopped, would the climate return to the conditions of 200 years ago?

If emissions of CO2 stopped altogether, it would take many thousands of years for atmospheric CO2 to return to ‘pre-industrial’ levels due to its very slow transfer to the deep ocean and ultimate burial in ocean sediments.

[…]

Significant cooling would be required to reverse melting of glaciers and the Greenland ice sheet, which formed during past cold climates.

[…]

The current CO2-induced warming of Earth is therefore essentially irreversible on human timescales. The amount and rate of further warming will depend almost entirely on how much more CO2 humankind emits.

This is either a lie, or an example of equally culpable willful ignorance. It completely ignores the likelihood of technology that could reverse human emissions of CO2 and sequester carbon to make up for releases of fossil carbon. It also ignores the likelihood of technology to directly influence local cooling and/or warming by modifying locally experienced levels of solar radiation (via, e.g. oribiting mirrors). Both technologies can be reasonably expected to exist within a century, while 2-3 decades could not be ruled out, especially with increased focus on developing it.

Bottom line: this document is arrant propaganda, clearly designed for purposes of political/social advocacy.

AK, you wrote:
Significant cooling would be required to reverse melting of glaciers and the Greenland ice sheet, which formed during past cold climates.

That is wrong. cooling turns off snowfall and then ice retreats.
Warming increases snowfall and that is when ice on earth is replenished. Ice is formed in warm times when there is water to provide moisture. There is not enough snowfall in cold times when the water is covered with ice. The snowfall has started, look at the news, all around the Northern Hemisphere. The Little Ice Age ended because the snowfall had stopped. The Little Ice Age occurred because the huge snowfalls happened in the Medieval Warm Period and ended the warming and caused the cooling.

AK, you wrote:
Significant cooling would be required to reverse melting of glaciers and the Greenland ice sheet, which formed during past cold climates.

I didn’t write it, I (block)quoted it, calling it “either a lie, or an example of equally culpable willful ignorance.”

I don’t care to debate your overly simplistic theories about warming and snow. My point is that on-going technology will soon allow humanity to control at a local scale the levels of solar radiation received at TOA, and thus to reverse or accelerate melting of ice, also at a local scale.

But “The IPCC projections are wrong because we will cut emissions!” is kind of crazy argument.

Typical alarmist straw-man argument. I wasn’t talking about the IPCC stuff (which, OTOH, has its own problems). I was talking about the NAS/RS “report” and propaganda web-site, which is the subject of this post.

The quoted parts of their web-site offer a statement with no caveats or uncertainty about how long CO2 that gets into the atmosphere will stay. The uncertainty is there: appropriate technology could almost certainly be developed, and the probability that it will is significantly non-zero. This renders the certainty of their propaganda statement on their propaganda web-site, talking about their propaganda “report” totally invalid: either a lie or equally culpable willful ignorance.

Worse yet, while much time, effort, and money have been spent investigating the supposed effects of the enhanced “greenhouse” effect on climate, much less has actually been spent on CO2. The correlation between the rise of pCO2 and the flowering of the Industrial Revolution is pretty telling (subject to Salby’s objections, which haven’t been scientifically investigated yet). But quite a few other processes followed the same rough exponential curve as the burning of fossil fuels, and there’s no certainty that it was that burning the created the rise.

Equally important, we don’t really have any idea if stopping emissions would stop the rise of pCO2. It seems intuitively likely, but that’s not science. Ecosystems are very complex, non-linear systems, with a variety of potential “tipping points” and strong magnifying feedbacks. Too little is known about the subject, and IMO most of what is known is based on simplistic and unwarranted assumptions.

Both these facts illustrate the critical importance of developing ways of sucking the CO2 back out of the atmosphere (or ocean surface, which is equivalent). Maybe (hopefully, IMO) it’ll happen, maybe it won’t. But the expressed certainty that it won’t renders this whole NAS/RS effort non-science: propaganda based on wishful thinking.

Could you identify which specific techniques of propaganda you allege are being used?

I bet you can, if you try!

After all, I’ve noticed at least half the techniques used in your comments in this thread.

lolwot | February 27, 2014 at 8:14 pm | has you pegged, not to jump on his bandwagon. The arguments you make require facts not in evidence. While I wish your premise of mitigation were true, simply put we don’t know that there will be sufficient mitigation to put a dent in the report’s findings, and the indications are not promising, however easy and economical it would be to mitigate. I’m on your side with regards to how sensible mitigation is; I simply don’t see it as a mallet to hammer NAS/RS.

Could you identify which specific techniques of propaganda you allege are being used?

I suspect you’re just trying to waste my time here, but a sampling would include: 8. ARTIFICIAL DICHOTOMY, 11. LEAST-OF-EVILS, 13. CAUSE AND EFFECT MISMATCH, 14. DISTORTION OF DATA or OUT OF CONTEXT or CARD STACKING, etc.

The arguments you make require facts not in evidence.

They’re not in the “report”, true. I’ve pointed them out here now and then. Also see some of the recent posts on my blog.

While I wish your premise of mitigation were true, simply put we don’t know that there will be sufficient mitigation to put a dent in the report’s findings, and the indications are not promising, however easy and economical it would be to mitigate. I’m on your side with regards to how sensible mitigation is; I simply don’t see it as a mallet to hammer NAS/RS.

Let’s start with terminology: I’m talking about remediation not mitigation. I can’t blame you for missing this distinction, since somehow it’s been left out of the general framing of the discussion. The key difference is that remediation is independent of emissions, can continue after emissions have ended, and can counteract other sources of atmospheric CO2 if necessary.

Second, we don’t need certainty that the technology will be developed. My criticism of the report depends on the fact that its final point depends on their “certainty” that such technology won’t be developed. Because if it is, it would not“take many thousands of years for atmospheric CO2 to return to ‘pre-industrial’ levels due to its very slow transfer to the deep ocean and ultimate burial in ocean sediments.”

Thus, they are guilty of creating propaganda in support of urgent “mitigation”, because they ignore the capacity for reversing the problem on a decadal/century time-scale. Thus this statement is false:

The current CO2-induced warming of Earth is therefore essentially irreversible on human timescales.

It’s not“essentially irreversible”, whether or not it gets reversed within, say, a century is entirely a political issue.

And if you’re really “on your side with regards to how sensible mitigationremediation is;”according to my calculations it could be done without any technological breakthroughs whatever. If the will were there. If the economics could be made cost-effective, which is partly a political issue.

(Of course, I don’t really believe the effective remediation will be done using Azolla, because there are probably more effective ways of doing it, which, however, would require some level of minor breakthrough. But it could be done that way.)

The paper that article is based on seems to be this one by Lean and Rind: “From 2009 to 2014, projected rises in anthropogenic influences and solar irradiance will increase global surface temperature 0.15±0.03°C, at a rate 50% greater than predicted by IPCC.”

Events over my research mentor’s career and my own suggest sixty-eight years (2014 – 1946 = 68 yrs) of deceit by NAS and RS to hide the source of energy in cores of:

1. Heavy atoms like uranium
2. Some planets like Jupiter
3. Ordinary stars like the Sun
4. Galaxies like the Milky Way.

NAS and RS are welcome to correct this interpretation of their actions by publicly addressing nine pages of precise experimental data that disagre with standard (consensus) models of heavy nuclei, stars, etc:

Dear Dr. Curry — The starting place in this discussion is for us to clearly understand what you mean by “Everyone agrees that climate change is happening”. Know your busy, maybe a simple web link to where you’ve clarified this? Thanks.

I’m actually agree with this position, but some people do make a distinction. This is one of the problems with Climate Change discussion. People involved don’t even agree on word meanings. Makes it difficult.

Climate is merely an average of weather. To predict climate, one must first predict the weather for the period used to define climate.

This cannot be done. I welcome proof that the future is knowable in any useful fashion that I cannot assume by myself.

Therefore, the argument is really that weather changes, and that humans have an effect. I suggest that this assumption is a reasonable one, but has no utility whatsoever.

As Mark Twain said: –

“I reverently believe that the Maker who made us all makes everything in New England but the weather. I don’t know who makes that, but I think it must be raw apprentices in the weather-clerk’s factory who experiment and learn how, in New England, for board and clothes, and then are promoted to make weather for countries that require a good article, and will take their custom elsewhere if they don’t get it.”

Nothing seems to have changed. To make a good climate, first prepare your weather. Any takers? I thought not.

I went to question 2 ” How do scientists know that recent climate change is largely caused by human activities?”

As I expected, all I found was platitudes; no hard science or any reference to empirical data. What I did find was the following “Calculations using climate models”. This is another downright lie. Computer simulations do NOT calculate anything. All they can do is estimate.

Once again we see the complete rejection of the scientific method, by these proponents of CAGW. They conclude, wrongly, that hypothetical estimations and the output of non-validated computer models are a substitute for empirical data. Such estimations never were, still are not, and never will be a substitute for measured data.

The fact that we cannot do controlled experiments on the earth’s atmosphere, means that we can never get the requisite data to prove whether the hypothesis of CAGW is correct or not. All I can do is repeat what I have written over and over again, that what little empirical data we have gives a strong indication that the climate sensitivity of CO2 added to the atmosphere from recent levels is 0.0 C to 1 place of decimals or 2 significant figures.

That’s a good one. Have you explained this to people who calculate satellite orbits and GPS coordinates; the lift capacities of aircraft wings and the flight durations of the aircraft; body clearance rates of medicines and toxins?

All I can do is repeat what I have written over and over again,

You could write meaningful responses to questions and criticisms of these claims of yours that computer simulations do not calculate anything .

Matthew R Marler: ” Have you explained this to people who calculate satellite orbits and GPS coordinates; the lift capacities of aircraft wings and the flight durations of the aircraft; body clearance rates of medicines and toxins?”

All of which are bounded and amenable to recursive measurement, testing, modification and refinement, and none of which are attempts to model effectively infinitely large non-linear open loop feedback driven chaotic systems where we are unable to know many/most of the feedbacks, of course.

So computer simulations of the Earth’s climate do NOT calculate anything, as is clearly obvious from even the most cursory comparison of their output with real-world measurements.

Jim Cripwell: I meant non -validated models, which is true of ALL climate models.

I am glad that you clarified. From your previous writings (e.g. your insistence that true “measurements” do no depend upon “estimates”), I thought that you meant it exactly as you wrote it.

And you went on to write: Once again we see the complete rejection of the scientific method, by these proponents of CAGW.

Well, they are over confident of their models, but I do not see that as complete rejection of the scientific method.

And then: that what little empirical data we have gives a strong indication that the climate sensitivity of CO2 added to the atmosphere from recent levels is 0.0 C to 1 place of decimals or 2 significant figures.

Well, that expresses your confidence in your model. Your confidence in your model is insufficient to establish that the csalt model of WHT and the oscillations model of Tsonis are less accurate than yours or wrong altogether — much less that other modelers than you are completely rejecting scientific methods.

The fact that we cannot do controlled experiments on the earth’s atmosphere, means that we can never get the requisite data to prove whether the hypothesis of CAGW is correct or not.

We can’t prove by that standard that the Earth rotates on its axis, revolves around the sun, has its axis tilted with respect to the plane of the ecliptic, that the solar system is within the Milky Way Galaxy, or that the Milky Way Galaxy rotates around its center of mass (which, as you have probably guessed, is one of those “mean” thingies that has no reality.)

Matthew, you write “Well, they are over confident of their models, but I do not see that as complete rejection of the scientific method.|”

My understanding of the scientific method, as described by Richard Feynman, is that one forms a hypothesis, does some theoretical estimations of something quantitative, and then you go out and measure this, and see if the hypothetical estimations are the same as the measurements.

Warmists do the hypothetical estimations, but then assume that these are correct, without confirming them by actual measurements. This is what I refer to as rejection of the scientific method.

The Royal Society (RS) declined to debate Climate Change publicly with the panel that Nigel Lawson put together last year. This may be because it had learnt from the attempt at open debated made in late 2006 by our Natural Environment Research Council (NERC). NERC were overwhelmed by the number of public questions and the follow up questions to their answers. Needless to say NERC did not change the mind of a single sceptic. NERC has a summary at its website but the debate itself has disappeared.

The RS is inviting questions, limited to 250 characters. Only the top 20 questions selected by anonymous public voting will be answered, presumably with no further debate. It is a propaganda exercise.

As other people have done before me, let me quote Ghandi “First they ignore us. Then they laugh at us. Then they fight us. Then we win”. This report strongly suggests that we are well into the phase where they fight us. The warmists are getting desperate.. I can only hope that it will not be too long before we win.

“12. Why is Arctic sea ice decreasing while Antarctic sea ice is not?”
Appalling spin. A fairer version of the question would read,
“Why is Arctic sea ice decreasing while Antarctic sea ice is increasing?”
or, even more informative,
“Why did Arctic sea ice reach a record low while Antarctic sea ice reached a record high?”

For some, it must be quite frustrating to witness the release of a well-produced publication such as this, with its concise, clear exposition, clear and informative graphs, and sound and entirely defensible scientific content.

But perhaps the heroic Roy Spencer will manage to uncover the carefully-scrubbed fingerprints of climate Nazism that must surely mark this report, and thereby save the world.

“…then discussing the ‘uncertainty issue’ in a superficial way at the end of the report is flat out misleading, and will reinforce the public distrust of ‘establishment’ assessments of climate science.”

I’ve long believed that the only way to alter the climate debate in a fundamental way is to overturn the fraudulent and fictional 97 percent consensus re CAGW. Just about every alarmist screed I’ve ever read uses this supposed overwhelming consensus as a rationale for stupendously expensive and disruptive mitigation policies while at the same time dismissing skeptics as lunatic deniers.

My fondest pipe dream is to hire a major polling firm like Gallup to design and implement a statistically valid survey of credentialed scientists to see how many are actually on board with the general thrust of the IPCC’s virtual certainty statement, and how many believe they’ve vastly overstated the case.

What would it cost? A million bucks? I really have no idea. But to get the imprimatur of a respected, neutral firm would likely cut the alarmist main argument off at the knees.

This will be used to say that the science is settled, and to allow governments the world over to further ignore or silence people like Judith and Roger Pielke, Jr.

This is the world George Orwell warned us about. The Government tells us what the deal is, the media doesn’t question it, and real science — discussion and exploration of all the uncertainties — is relegated to obscurity. (Not that this is a new insight, or the first time this has happened, it is just that is is being applied to GHGs and the economic stakes are very high.)

This is a very dangerous document in my view, precisely because it obscures uncertainty and will be a rallying point for the galloping herd of free thinkers who want their kind of action NOW, and who want more ammunition to stifle debate.

I really dislike this argument. Among many other since, I heard it used by Rush Limbaugh 10 or so years ago when I was still a sneering warmist. His main point was that God would never have created a climate fragile enough for mere men to screw with. Of course it only made me sneer the more…

I can pretty much guarantee that if man really made up his mind to try, he could do a pretty good job of laying waste to the world we now enjoy. And God couldn’t do a thing about it.

To be clear, I do not believe anthro Co2 is dangerous though I’m far from certain. Within limits, it’s very likely beneficial. My point is the claim that the atmosphere can’t be messed up by puny mankind is a very poor talking point, if your aim is to change minds. It has all sorts of implications that play into Progressive stereotypes….though I’m guessing you don’t really care.

Does anyone outside Western civilization really care? Should Western civilization begin preparing to go to war with the air pirates of Brazil, Russia, India and China when they fail to heed the doomsday warnings of Western academia?

“These include a relatively quiet period of solar activity and a measured increase in the amount of aerosols (reflective particles) in the atmosphere due to the cumulative effects of a succession of small volcanic eruptions”

What a can of worms. So we have to know the contribution of ‘small volcanic eruptions’ and man-made particulates before and after the introduction of the ‘Clean Air Acts’ in the Western World. As ‘small volcanic eruptions’ are completely dissimilar in their ejection profile to ‘large volcanic eruptions;, and far more like smokey chimneys.

Doc, don’t look at this as a science document. From what I read, mainstream climate change scientists don’t think that solar amounts to much for temp change. We’ve just read in the APS transcripts that many such scientists no longer think that manmade aerosols have nearly the impact they thought they might have, 5 or 10 years ago.

So this isn’t a summary of the best current science. It is a summary of excuses for why natural variability can’t be much of a reason for the pause. The purpose is to give comfort to warmists who might have started to doubt the full theology a little bit, because of the 16 year pause.

It is, therefore, a political document, disguised as a scientific one.

Just to be clear, I do believe that CO2 and methane and such warm the climate. The issues are rates, causes, effects (positive as well as negative), and the different policies that might flow from different assessments of same.

John, you write “It is, therefore, a political document, disguised as a scientific one.”

I, for one, agree with you 100%. But if we are right, then it raises a much more important question. Why is there no senior scientist who has the gonads to stand up in public and declare in simple terms, that that venerable institution, the Royal Society, which traces it’s origins to the 17th century, is guilty of promulgating a blatantly political document as a piece of science?

“Why is there no senior scientist who has the gonads to stand up in public and declare in simple terms, that that venerable institution, the Royal Society, which traces it’s origins to the 17th century, is guilty of promulgating a blatantly political document as a piece of science?”

To answer your question about why scientists don’t take a stand against a political document like this, as best I can.

If you think that CO2 warms the air and we should do something, you aren’t likely to go against a public statement like this, even if you think it overstates what we are certain about. Why? It would ostracize you, perhaps ruin your marriage, and for what? You become a bit of a pariah, but yet you agree with the policy.

So what you do is just say, “Well, if that is what the Royal Society wants to say, that is there business, even if I think it isn’t quite right, it is in the right direction and for the right cause.”

You have to be someone who cares so devoutly about getting real science and real truth out, that you basically pull your life apart in service to the cause of trying to communicate the full picture. You have to submit yourself to defamation, as Judy has. And it has to still be worth it to you.

I also think there is tribalism in this. The nastiness of attacks from both sides is brutal. Joe Romm and websites similar to his attack anyone who questions their sense of the consensus are one illustration, but also look at what some of the commenters say at WUWT, listen to folks like Limbaugh, some of the R’s in Congress. Do you want to be associated with that tribe? I don’t want to be associated with either tribe, to be honest, but certainly not Rush’s.

Suppose you are the kind of scientist that thinks climate change is a legit issue, that CO2 warms the planet, but that this particular document (not to mention some websites) oversimplifies the issue, pretends that there is more certainty than there is. I would think that many such scientists would want to stay with their tribe and not give comfort to the enemy by hitting a discordant note.

Again, there are very few people whose allegiance to science and the scientific process is so strong, that they are willing to be very public about getting the science right, including uncertainties, and going very visibly public in that effort. That is why there are so few websites like Judy’s.

John, you write “I also think there is tribalism in this. The nastiness of attacks from both sides is brutal.”

Again, I agree with just about all you have written. I find it extremely sad that ANY scientist would ever think of him (her) self as belonging to a tribe. Surely if we are right, then science itself has sunk to abysmal depths.

“How are the mighty fallen and the weapons of war perished ” Samuel 2.

You’ve crossed over from facile to disingenuous. Of course there’s an alternative explanation. ONly trouble is, it’s very likely not valid. Do you really suppose that dissenting scientists…that is those who believe virtual certainty about anthro Co2 is unwarranted, are limited to a handful of brave, outspoken people like Judith Curry and Richard Lindzen?

Steven writes “Jim’s logic is this. He believes X. They must also believe X. They refuse
to say X, therefore they have no balls.”

As usual, Steven misquotes me, and, in effect puts words in my mouth. If he read carefully what I had written, he would have observed the following:-

“But if we are right, then it raises a much more important question.”

The question about scientists speaking out presupposes that John and I are correct. If we are wrong, then, clearly, what I wrote has no meaning. But then, Steven never seems to bother to read what does not suit him.

So this isn’t a summary of the best current science. It is a summary of excuses for why natural variability can’t be much of a reason for the pause. The purpose is to give comfort to warmists who might have started to doubt the full theology a little bit, because of the 16 year pause.

Reasons they give for the pause include ENSO, low solar activity and volcanoes. Is that not “natural” variablity? And given that “warmists” have been saying all along that (to the extent that it actually exists at all) the pause is due to natural variability I’m not sure why you think that we somehow want to avoid this conclusion.

While reading through the post, I couldn’t help having a furtive reflection of Ben Santer rewriting AR2 WG1 with the doors closed and all the other AR2 WG 1 participants having gone home.

NAS and RS came out with their own climate change positions and now they produce a joint effort. Kinda like authoritarian joining of church and state. Now you really have to believe us.

I like Judith’s commentary:

“The slowdown in warming is the hottest issue in the public debate on climate change. The NAS/RS posed the question poorly. Everyone agrees that climate change is happening; the issue is whether humans are the dominant contributor. In their answer, no mention is made of the growing disagreement between climate models surface temperature observations. Recent research over the last 6 months provides support for a dominant influence from the shift in ocean circulation patterns in the pacific, with forcing from the Sun and aerosols playing a minor role.”

If I recall correctly, something about ocean oscillations reflecting climate change and Tsonis I believe way back in 2007 demonstrated mathematically at least, a coming together of these climate indices leading to abrupt changes in climate regimes. Hmmm. It seems that a Chief of something or other was raising the importance of ocean oscillations in climate change on this blog for quite some time. He kept on insisting we read the science literature on this issue which he posted many times. I am not sure why the writers of the position papers put forth by NAS and RS hadn’t either read and/or acknowledge any of this literature. So I think the ocean oscillation story is more than 6 months old. My guess of course is that the pause has prompted others to rethink the cause making consensus a mighty lonely spot.

Citizens and governments can choose among several options (or a mixture of those options) in response to this information: they can change their pattern of energy production and usage in order to limit emissions of greenhouse gases and hence the magnitude of climate changes; they can wait for changes to occur and accept the losses, damage and suffering that arise; they can adapt to actual and expected changes as much as possible; or they can seek as yet unproven ‘geoengineering’ solutions to counteract some of the climate changes that would otherwise occur.

I’ll take Door #4, geo-engineering. There are several decades, if not a century, before the problem is potentially big. If the climate is understood as well as many climatologists say it is, that should be plenty of time to develop countermeasures without stifling economic growth and keeping whole populations in poverty.

A cynic might say that climate engineering would require CAGW climatologists to accountably participate in problem solving instead of setting themselves up as regulators.

My sense is that if humanity can’t learn to tweak the biosphere in a century, we don’t deserve to be named homo sapiens.

Interesting. There’s a link to (a different copy) of this PDF on their website, but has anyone found a link to an HTML document stating this “conclusion”? It looks (at first glance, anyway) as though the “conclusion” has been buried, in preference for more alarmist statements.

“An axiom, or postulate, is a premise or starting point of reasoning. A self-evident principle or one that is accepted as true without proof as the basis for argument; a postulate. As classically conceived, an axiom is a premise so evident as to be accepted as true without controversy.” Wikipedia

“From the conclusion:”

Your quote from the conclusion demonstrates once again, as if such a demonstration were necessary, that ‘Climate Science’ treats as axiomatic that ACO2 is causing the TOE to rise precipitously and that the rise will prove catastrophic unless ‘energy policies’ are implemented to counteract ACO2.

The only thing addressed by the paper is how to force the populace at large to acknowledge the axiom, AS AN AXIOM RATHER THAN A THEORY, and accept the dictatorial ‘corrective measures’ that the progressive_politician/Cilimate_science Complex has already implemented and obviously intends to continue to implement at an exponentially increasing rate.

The reaction of ‘Climate Science’ to any person or data set that even hints that the effects of ACO2 are theoretical rather than axiomatic is also instructive. See for example how its treatment of Dr. Curry as a ‘Climate Scientist in Good Standing’ has shifted as her views, as expressed on this site, in published papers, and public testimony has begun to shift, mildly, over the last few years from ACO2 driven CAGW as an axiom toward ACO2 driven AGW, minus the ‘C” as a theory. It hasn’t been pretty.

We are allegedly doing exactly that as a byproduct of living long lives in relative affluence thanks to the availability of low cost energy based on fossil fuels, and the “consensus” climate scientists plus selected politicians apparently have their knickers all twisted as a result.

Why are all these documents ignoring the long term sweep of history and act as if climate began 60 years ago. I would welcome for once, a discussion of what science knows about the last 1,000 or so. At least you could put into context our changes in the 20th century compared to those experienced from before MWP thru LIA to now. Much more convenient
for them this way I guess.

Follow the money. The US govt spends over 30 billion a year on climate change. State and local govts, corporations, foundations, hedge funds and non-profits pour in huge amounts as well. Other nations spend large numbers.

If the scientists don’t ignore the long sweep of history, they don’t get their hands on a piece of the money.

JC has commented the Q&A #10, #12, & #18.
Here there are my comments on some of the other Q&A:
#13: IPCC tends not to correlate catastrophic wheather events with climate change, (as there is no theoretical physical basis for that correlation), but these guys do. Why?
#2: If anyone studies the physical basis of climate change and compares models with observations: the only plaussible scientific conclusion is that there is not enough recorded observations in order to attribute climate change to human activities. IPCC choses only one of the possible scenarios (the one where GHG causes climate change) to obtain that “fingerprint” that points to men causing climate change [magic?: no, it is only circular reasoning]. BUT this same abuse of statistics can point to solar variability as main driver of climate change. (I sent JC 3 easy-to-read articles that explain this, I hope we can disscuss them in her blog).
#5: 1960’s models related to vertical structure of atmospheric temperature are all right. But when they are used in trying to explain parameter values like climate sensitivity: they fail as they are highly tuneable. More on this in pg.5 of my doc:https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B4r_7eooq1u2VHpYemRBV3FQRjA
#20: The 4 scenarios in that figure are not reliable. (I sent JC 3 easy-to-read articles that explain this, I hope we can disscuss them in her blog).
Conclusion: Shame on the NAS/RS lads. Less academicism and more independent studies.

If one were to take a poll of scientists who were in agreement that combustion of fossil fuels is the primary reason for global warming, most would probably agree that CO2 is the cause. How many of them would point out that the heat emitted from those fuels (the reason we burn them) is, alone, more than enough to cause the temperature rise that we see, and that the role of CO2 has been greatly overstated? Is it possible that a new, unbiased group of scientists could try to determine the relative importance of these two products products of combustion so that our policies and actions are more effectively directed? If CO2 is indeed a minor consideration, why should time and money be spent on carbon capture and storage?

How many of them would point out that the heat emitted from those fuels (the reason we burn them) is, alone, more than enough to cause the temperature rise that we see, and that the role of CO2 has been greatly overstated?

Hopefully none, since the increase of heat content in the upper 2 km of the oceans since 1970 alone is approximately 2X10^4 greater than the total energy released by burning coal, oil and gas since the dawn of the industrial age. And unlike combustion which releases energy once, the added atmospheric CO2 keeps on trapping heat for centuries.

Steven — In your opinion, is there “anything” (of significance) that you (BEST, Dr. Muller) and Dr. Curry agree on? It sure doesn’t look like it. If someone disagrees with a basic tenet “that the Earth’s temperature is showing a significant upward trend”, how is any meaningful dialogue possible? Could you recommend a Blog where “us” Average Joe’s can go where there is objective discussion of what we know and don’t know?

What we disagree on.
How much. Muller probably attributes for of the warming to GHGs than
Curry or I would. Judith, I’m not so sure how much we differ.
Policy: We all agree on transparency. Natural Gas. Muller and I agree its a good bridge. Judith doesnt say much about policy. I wouldnt ask her. Not interesting to me.

2. If someone disagrees with a basic tenet “that the Earth’s temperature is showing a significant upward trend”, how is any meaningful dialogue possible?

all sorts of dialogue. what do we mean by trend? how do we model it?
what’s significant? all sorts of dialogue.
The problem happens when people change their arguments from a methodological standpoint.

##############
Could you recommend a Blog where “us” Average Joe’s can go where there is objective discussion of what we know and don’t know?

no such thing as an objective discussion. by that I mean a discussion that is free from some sort of bias.. for example, who picks what is important to discuss.

Steven Mosher — Could you give us 1 or 2 sentences on what you believe are “facts” on the Earth’s temperature change trendline since any starting point you want to use and 2013. I’m definitely not asking for any how’s or why’s.

I don’t think that this is quite correct. When you have measured empirical data, you can use all sorts of different methods to try and see what trends there are in the data. However, none of this curve fitting will ever give you any idea of what is going to happen ion the future.

if you want to predict what is gong to happen in the future, then you must come up with an explanation as to why the data exhibits the characteristics that it does. You can call this a model, or anything else you like.

If the explanation, in fact, encompasses ALL the various effects that control the data, then your predictions will turn out to be accurate. If the explanation does not cover all effects, then it will not be able to predict the future.

In general the only way to be certain that the explanation covers all eventualities, you need to predict the future and then have the data confirm these predictions for a sufficient number of times that the predictions could not be correct by accident.

“Global warming of just a few degrees will be associated with widespread changes in regional and local temperature and precipitation as well as with increases in some types of extreme weather events. These and other changes (such as sea level rise and storm surge) will have serious impacts on human societies and the natural world.”

this is where personal opinion comes into it. whether this is something its worth even bothering trying to prevent or not comes down to personal preference. in my opinion, changes in temperature, precipitation and some more storminess is a very small price to pay for cheap fossil fuel based energy. I couldn’t really care if the sea level rose 10 m. some people will have to move – big deal.

What fossil fuel energy? Must be hiding underneath the table somewhere.

Like Bush said, we must use models of math destruction. Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.

I think if greenland and antarctica melted overnight we’d cope. we’d all just build new houses inland a bit. vast areas would open up for colonisation. dolphins would love it. I just cant get worked up over a 1m rise in sea level over the next 100 years. perhaps I’m just not a worrier. as for temperatures going up a bit – bring it on. maybe we’ll have to grow different crops – hardly a society altering proposition. I haven’t really seen anything predicted even given climate change at the high end of IPCC estimates that would cause me anything other than vague interest. i got flooded in the UK storms of 2007. so I moved house and my landlord used the insurance to do the house up – he made a tidy profit. it was quite fun and made an interesting conversation for the pub. that’s it.

Judith Curry, given your expertise in statistical hypothesis-testing, and your long-standing advocacy of rational skepticism, you are uniquely well-suited to advance the climate-change science by the following concrete scientific path:

An Open Question What data-driven statistical test (if any) suffices to reject the null hypothesis (“there is no pause”) with P &lt 0.05?

——————Answer A No credible statistical test supports abandonment of the null hypothesis “there is no pause.” In this respect, climate-change skepticism lacks statistical foundations.

Answer B The credible statistical test [<to be named>] supports abandonment of the null hypothesis “there is no pause.” In this respect, climate-change skepticism has solid statistical foundations.
——————

Conclusion At present Answer A prevails by default: “There is no pause.” More broadly, climate-change skepticism has no rational scientific basis whatsoever, in microscopic physics, macroscopic thermodynamics, or observational analysis — thus the scientific community is well-justified to assert a Hansen-style climate-change consensus.

A fan of *MORE* discourse: Null Hypothesis “There is no pause in surface-temperature warming.”

Why is that the null hypothesis? Usually the null hypothesis is framed in such a way that a hypothesized effect is indistinguishable from natural variation due to everything else, like this: All of the measured climate variation of the last few thousand years is independent of anthropogenic CO2.

Professor Curry’s comment here is relevant: Recent research over the last 6 months provides support for a dominant influence from the shift in ocean circulation patterns in the pacific, with forcing from the Sun and aerosols playing a minor role.

Attempts to discern an effect of anthropogenic CO2 on the course of global mean temperature have to date been non-informative due to the persistent underestimation of the natural variation of the climate.

There is some debate about whether it is possible to come up with a null hypothesis after a bunch of the relevant data have been collected. It makes more sense to frame a null hypothesis and alternative hypothesis that can be tested or compared with future data. Thus you might take the csalt model of WHT or the dynamical model of Tsonis et al as the null hypothesis, and test them with future data. Putting H0 and HA in the same sentence, you might rewrite your hypothesis this way: the global mean temperatures of the next 20 years will be better described by the slope estimated from 1975-1995 than by the slope estimated from 1996 – 2013 (you get to pick the start and end dates for the two estimates, and the start date for the collection of data: now, next year, 2020, etc.) Then you can have an actual test with estimable type 1 and type 2 errors, based on best available evidence of background variation. I would suggest a sequential test, using Vaughan Pratt’s model of background variation, or Nicola Scafetta’s model of CO2-independent variation estimated from pre-1975 data.

You have the null hypothesis wrong. Trenberth tried to get it changed to your proposal – but failed. The null hypothesis is still that the changes in the climate are natural.

The burden of proof is on those trying to change the null hypothesis – and the science cannot do that yet. The data is to ambiguous and therefore still consistent with natural variability having caused most of the warming seen since 1950 as well as since 1850 and 1750.

Matthew R Marler, RickA, and DocMartyn … are Climate Etc readers correct in appreciating that denialist varieties of skepticism have no scientific basis whatsoever? Not in statistics … not in thermodynamics … not in physics?

A fan of *MORE* discourse: Matthew R Marler, RickA, and DocMartyn … are Climate Etc readers correct in appreciating that denialist varieties of skepticism have no scientific basis whatsoever? Not in statistics … not in thermodynamics … not in physics?

I see you are making no attempt whatever to justify your choice of null hypothesis; and no attempt to think about testing your H0 against a different hypothesis with future data.

Absent an answer to this question, climate-change skepticism has no scientific justification whatsoever.

My sketch of a test procedure explicitly refers to climate change and diverse models of climate change in the absence of CO2 change. Do you think that the climate would not have changed without anthropogenic CO2? If climate would have changed without anthropogenic CO2, and if we consider realistic quantitative and semi-quantitative accounts of such change, then it is hard to tell whether anthropogenic CO2 has made much of a difference. Were you proposing in your since-abandoned null hypothesis test to employ an assumption that background variation was iid?

Was that an example of “discourse”? Instead of addressing any of the limitations in the knowledge base concerning hypothesized climate effects of anthropogenic CO2 (e.g. the focus of one of the NAS/RS 20 questions), or responding to a critique, you go off on a tangent about some publications.

FOMD explains “the ideology-first cherry-picking brands of skepticism — as promulgated by enclaves of irrationality like WUWT / Heartland / National Review / PJMedia / Competitive Enterprise Institute / RedState / FreedomWorks, etc. — are receiving little or no respect from scientific community [because these enclaves are] like ideological sticks (selected for identity) bound together as a fasces around an axis of special interests.”

lolwot: Note that the common trick of plotting a statistically insignificant OLS trend since year X is not a valid test of the null because it makes no reference to the prior admitted period of warming.

There are two good alternatives. First, as I outlined, write your hypotheses now, your model of background variation, and test the hypotheses with future data.

Second, start with the most recent year or month for which reasonably curated means are available, specify the background variation, and work backward in time to the earliest reliable observations using a change-point detection algorithm. Your “change points”, detected and non-detected, will depend on the model that you use for background variation; you can choose noise models to get what you think the truth is.

A third you might try, based on Santers simulations, is to divide the time into 17 year segments, the latest ending now, and test whether the many 17 year segments have the same slopes of mean temp vs year. Again, based on evidence to date, your answer will depend on the noise model that you use, and you can choose a noise model to get the result that you think is true.

In my region and within my memory, for example, human life has become less creaturely and more engineered, less familiar and more remote from local places, pleasures, and associations.

Our knowledge, in short, has become increasingly statistical.

Statistical knowledge once was rare. It was a property of the minds of great rulers, conquerors, and generals, people who succeeded or failed by the manipulation of large quantities that remained, to them, unimagined because unimaginable: merely accountable quantities of land, treasure, people, soldiers, and workers.

This is the sort of knowledge we now call “data” or “facts” or “information.” Or we call it “objective knowledge,” supposedly untainted by personal attachment, but nonetheless available for industrial and commercial exploitation. By means of such knowledge a category assumes dominion over its parts or members. With the coming of industrialism, the great industrialists, like kings and conquerors, become exploiters of statistical knowledge.

And finally virtually all of us, in order to participate and survive in their system, have had to agree to their substitution of statistical knowledge for personal knowledge. Virtually all of us now share with the most powerful industrialists their remoteness from actual experience of the actual world. Like them, we participate in an absentee economy, which makes us effectively absent even from our own dwelling places.

Though most of us have little wealth and perhaps no power, we consumer–citizens are more like James B. Duke than we are like my grandfather. By economic proxies thoughtlessly given, by thoughtless consumption of goods ignorantly purchased, now we all are boomers.

In this age so abstracted and bewildered by technological magnifications of power, people who stray beyond the limits of their mental competence typically find no guide except for the supposed authority of market price.

“The market” thus assumes the standing of ultimate reality.

But market value is an illusion, as is proven by its frequent changes; it is determined solely by the buyer’s ability and willingness to pay.

By now our immense destructiveness has made clear that the actual value of some things exceeds human ability to calculate or measure, and therefore must be considered absolute.

For the destruction of these things there is never, under any circumstances, any justification. Their absolute value is recognized by the mortal need of those who do not have them, and by affection.

Land, to people who do not have it and who are thus without the means of life, is absolutely valuable. Ecological health, in a land dying of abuse, is not worth “something”; it is worth everything.

a fan of *MORE* discourse: Small wonder that denialists scarcely can bear to hear these truths! Yet for citizens with sufficient imagination and courage, Berry’s lecture well-repays the most careful study … and reflection.

That does not have anything to do with your choice of null hypothesis or how to test it. It’s more of a walk in dense fog.

Matthew R Marler, once you grasp that the denialist’s “pause” has *NO* basis in physical dynamics, *NO* basis in thermodynamics, and *NO* basis in observational statistics … then you will be better-prepared to experience Wendell Berry’s lecture, not as a baffling “walk in the fog”, but rather as an illuminating journey toward enlightenment.

Best wishes for good luck in this journey are extended to all Climate Etc readers without exception, Matthew R Marler!

A fan of *MORE* discourse: Matthew R Marler, once you grasp that the denialist’s “pause” has *NO* basis in physical dynamics, *NO* basis in thermodynamics, and *NO* basis in observational statistics

You, WebHubTelescope, and R. Gates Skeptical Warmist need to get together and hammer out a coherent theory of what is or isn’t happening.
Anyone who disagrees with any one of you gets called a “denier”, and yet each of you denies the others’ writing.

Meanwhile, tell us again how you decide the null hypothesis, and a reasonable statistical test against a reasonable alternative. You have been evading that for hours.

”
You, WebHubTelescope, and R. Gates Skeptical Warmist need to get together and hammer out a coherent theory of what is or isn’t happening.
”

Incredible amount of ignorance mixed with naivete in that statement. You act as if we are the only three people suggesting that GHG-based AGW is happening. We are but the tip of the iceberg, and simply building on the foundation set by countless other far more qualified climate scientists over the years.

I can’t speak for the others but my motivation is to provide simplified physics explanations for what is happening and I happen to use this blogging platform to make it id!ot-proof. The other motivating goal is to eventually use the simplified models to do prediction and further use the knowledge to supplement renewable energy research. See my web site http://ContextEart.com.

The funny thing is that the conflagrations of the skeptic only help me out as they only make the arguments stronger — own goals and all that. Can’t tell you all the good information that we get from the likes of Scafetta, Curry and others, who think their ideas are countering conventional GHG theory but in practice is strengthening the consensus AGW.

WebHubTelescope: You act as if we are the only three people suggesting that GHG-based AGW is happening.

No, I write that your claims regarding the Pause are contradictory: e.g. the Pause is explainable vs the Pause isn’t even happening. FOMD, for example, wrote that the surface temperature mean is increasing just as James Hansen predicted (although FOMD’s language fluctuates a little on that point), despite the fact that Hansen didn’t predict a pause; you wrote that the Pause that Hansen didn’t predict isn’t just happening but is perfectly explainable by thermodynamic principles. Your thermodynamic principles, as far as I can tell, do not accommodate R. Gates’ claim that the heat is continuing to accumulate in the deep ocean without raising the temperature of the more sensitive troposphere.

Do you really not perceive the conflicts among the propositions that you three have written? At least 2 of you have to be wrong, and I think all three of you are imprecise and self-contradictory.

Of course you are under no obligation to answer my questions or any one else’s questions. My latest was “How long, according to your model, will the Pause continue?” Can you get that from thermodynamic principles, or are model “forecasts” contingent on the measurements of the stadium wave and the Southern Oscillation Index?

Since you indirectly slighted Willis Eschenbach’s description of energy transfers in the ENSO, would you care to write an actual critique of some part of his description? He claimed only partial knowledge, not completeness.

Absolutely nothing inconsistent in this. All the GCMs are trying to do is get the spatio-temporal flows right to be able to model this. I am thinking that perhaps there is a deterministic forcing which emerges in the SOI pattern. Others may differ, but what is absolutely known is that it does revert to the mean, which makes it not critical in the long-term path of the global warming signal — it’s the dog on the leash so to speak.

So try again, perhaps you can make a good scientific argument one of these days.

And BTW, Wonderin Willis is a freakin id!ot. Why anyone would trust any of his manipulated meanderings is beyond me.

“And BTW, Wonderin Willis is a freakin id!ot. Why anyone would trust any of his manipulated meanderings is beyond me.”

Just my translation of this statement, but you do not have a reasonable argument to make except for hand waving and generic quoting of thermodynamic laws so you attack the person. I don’t even know who this is, but it does make me want to find out what they wrote that makes you so frustrated.

”
ATAndB | February 28, 2014 at 1:54 pm |
Just my translation of this statement, but you do not have a reasonable argument to make except for hand waving and generic quoting of thermodynamic laws so you attack the person. I don’t even know who this is, but it does make me want to find out what they wrote that makes you so frustrated.
“

You seem to have a problem. I have written a complete ENSO and Global Temperature analysis on my blog at http://ContextEarth.com. If you have problems with it or if you disagree with something I’ve said, please quote the exact words you disagree with. That way all of us can understand exactly what you object to.

WebHubTelescope: And BTW, Wonderin Willis is a freakin id!ot. Why anyone would trust any of his manipulated meanderings is beyond me.

I did not write about trust. You wrote a content-free snide remark, and I asked if there was anything he wrote that was wrong that you wanted to point out to us. His writing (which I have critiqued from time to time) is less idiotic than your writing. If he wrote something false, quote it and let us know how you know it is false.

That’s cool. I wouldn’t call it a “complete analysis”, it is another curve-fitting exercise with a nice set of functions and parameters estimated from data. It would be good if it did turn out to be predictive.

Sez your humble self? Is this more of your Dunning-Krueger style pop-psych?

Anyway, when Willis Eschenbach presents his data analyses, they are usually insightful, a really good example being his presentation of the ENSO “Power Stroke”. Since you introduced it to us with a snide remark you have not quoted even one thing he wrote that is either wrong or unreasonable.

”
Anyway, when Willis Eschenbach presents his data analyses, they are usually insightful, a really good example being his presentation of the ENSO “Power Stroke”. Since you introduced it to us with a snide remark you have not quoted even one thing he wrote that is either wrong or unreasonable.
”

Willis’ “Power Stroke” was what he did to those women in the 60’s that he was bragging about. Are you that naive to not understand that Willis is engaged in a schtick designed to lead all the gullible rubes on?

The skeptic Bob Carter made the lagged correlation between the ENSO SOI measure and global temperature a few years ago [1]. In the CSALT model, I found that the lag is pretty short (~6 months) between the pressure imbalance and the global temperature response. Remember that Carter is a huge skeptic.

If the science doesn’t support disaster, or is even trending in the wrong direction, these bad outcomes are “uncertain”, and the observational counter-evidence is not discussed.

If the data is trending in the “right” direction, the observational evidence is discussed and extrapolations are made.

Uncertainty only applies to how horribly bad things will get, in a single direction. Near term catastrophe “can’t be ruled out”, but zero discussion on this may all end up being a non-event.

And the burying of the models vs. observation divergence is inexcusable from a science discussion.

I give them points for stating what the expected temperature rise and sea level rise, and rates of rise currently are. I find that most of the real propaganda out there never states this because the numbers aren’t very scary from a Joe Six Pack intuitive point of view.

If the rates are stated, they tend to be followed up by a “this doesn’t sound like much, but…”

Lots of vague discussions on impacts to society without stating what these would really be. Hand waving…

This document is a bunch of sophistries which are a disgrace to science. There are apparently no possible positive effects, but plenty of dark hints about negative ones. The level of consensus is only increasing, not decreasing. And so on.

And the skating around the failures of the models is just downright dishonest.

“A faster rate of heat penetration into the deeper ocean will slow the warming seen at the surface and in the atmosphere, but by itself will not change the long-term warming that will occur from a given amount of CO2. For example, recent studies show that some heat comes out of the ocean into the atmosphere during warm El Niño events, and more heat penetrates to ocean depths in cold La Niñas. Such changes occur repeatedly over timescales of decades and longer. An example is the major El Niño event in 1997–98 when the globally averaged air temperature soared to the highest level in the 20th century as the ocean lost heat to the atmosphere, mainly by evaporation.”

So, part of the high temperature in 1998 was caused by a natural phenomenon of the oceans losing heat to the atmosphere? I guess that manmade CO2 just isn’t as powerful as Alarmists had thought.

The quoted material grasps at straws and strains to find warming among several speculations that are entirely unworthy of the name scientific hypothesis.

8. Is there a point at which adding more CO2 will not cause further warming?

No. Adding more CO2 to the atmosphere will cause surface temperatures to continue to increase. As the atmospheric concentrations of CO2 increase, the addition of extra CO2 becomes progressively less effective at trapping Earth’s energy, but surface temperature will still rise.

Even in the theoretical, this is dishonest. As the atmospheric concentration of CO2 increases, IR absorption becomes saturated. At some point, the “progressively less effective” heat trapping diminishes to a point that the increment drops into the noise – even in their incomplete theory. They not only lie about what is happening, they can’t even be honest in their description of what their own theory predicts will happen.

10: Does the recent slowdown of warming mean that climate change is no longer happening?

No. Since the very warm year 1998 that followed the strong 1997-98 El Niño, the increase in average surface temperature has slowed relative to the previous decade of rapid temperature increases. Despite the slower rate of warming the 2000s were warmer than the 1990s.

Intentionally conflating “warm” with “warming”. Describing ZERO warming and even nominal COOLING as a “slower rate of warming”. These acts are only committed by the stupid and the dishonest, and these people are not stupid.

When such cynical lies are found in a document, its authors cannot be trusted. They are profoundly dishonest people.

Even in the theoretical, this is dishonest. As the atmospheric concentration of CO2 increases, IR absorption becomes saturated.

No, it doesn’t. There is pressure broadening of the absorption bands, and anyway the average radiative surface is raised (relative to the levels of atmospheric pressure). As long as the average radiative surface (of IR wavelengths involved with CO2) remains in the troposphere, increased CO2 will, all other things being equal reduce the amount of IR radiation coming from the Earth at TOA.

It has been argued (by warmists) that the only plausible way for the Earth’s energy budget to become equalized is for surface temperatures to rise. Logically, this doesn’t follow, considering all the other ways in which “all other things” can be unequal, but plausibility is a matter of opinion, usually based more on preconceptions than observed fact.

Of course, when the pCO2 reaches the point that the average radiative surface enters the Stratosphere, it becomes a major game changer. As to the rules of the new game, who knows?

The past 15 or so years the air temperature has diverged from what our best understanding (GCMs) projected.
That may be down to
A) changes in forcing
B) Natural variability
C) inadequate observations
D) inadequate models.
Our best understanding isnt very good.

The attribution arguments depended upon are ground on these same factors: Historical estimations of forcing, poorly simulated natural variability,
incomplete observations, and the self same models.

To argue that we are more certain about attribution now, more certain when the latest computer experiments raise questions about fundamentals, seems odd on its face.

For people who care about attribution ( err not me so much) this question needs to be addressed clearly and completely. Its not impossible that we are more confident, but that doesnt seem right on its face. As long as folks talk about “attribution” over here, and the ‘pause’ over there, that puzzle
remains puzzling.

Question: explain why the pause and the uncertainty associated with it, does not bleed into the confidence expressed in attribution statements.

I’m not sure whether it does or does not, but the question deserves some extended commentary and explanation

Steve, we can rule out
‘C) inadequate observations’
All we need to do is take the means and SD’s of HADCRU/GISS/NOAA/BEST and Cowtan&Way; using this statistical ‘trick’ the CI of the averaged series are very small and the pause is easy to identify from 1970-2000.
They use the same ‘trick’ of averaging for models, why can’t we do it for different temperature series?

“The past 15 or so years the air temperature has diverged from what our best understanding (GCMs) projected.
That may be down to
A) changes in forcing
B) Natural variability
C) inadequate observations
D) inadequate models.
__________________
Regarding:
A) Yes, likely, and data related both to volcanic aerosols and TSI would indicate such is the case
B) Yes, likely, and data related to the PDO and ENSO characteristics would indicate such
C) Less, likely as observations have only gotten better over the period versus the previous period
D) Models are always going to be wrong, so this goes without saying

“The past 15 or so years the air temperature has diverged from what our best understanding (GCMs) projected.
That may be down to
A) changes in forcing
B) Natural variability
C) inadequate observations
D) inadequate models.
__________________
Regarding:
A) Yes, likely, and data related both to volcanic aerosols and TSI would indicate such is the case”

You pants are on fire. The aerosols in the past 12 years are far less than the previous 25 years. However, these are now being altered to make the 1970-2000 period to have less and the post-2000 years to have more.

“You pants are on fire. The aerosols in the past 12 years are far less than the previous 25 years.”
____
Well, then I guess you’ll have data that in contrary to Santer’s et. al new paper. It better be pretty good data, as Santer’s is excellent.

“R. Gates, Skeptical Warmist | February 27, 2014 at 5:44 pm |
“You pants are on fire. The aerosols in the past 12 years are far less than the previous 25 years.”
____
Well, then I guess you’ll have data that in contrary to Santer’s et. al new paper. It better be pretty good data, as Santer’s is excellent.”

Well no actually. All I need to know is that the ‘consensus’ was that all but the largest volcanic eruptions have no effect on climate and that all the previous estimates of aerosols show no uptick over the present period.
Santer has produced a piece of biased bilge, designed to artificially inflate a ‘forcing’ where there were none before. It is either a work of genius that completely sweeps all previous studies into the garbage or it is a work of charlatanism that completely disagrees with all previous studies.

So you pays your money and take your choice, either Santer is a towering figure who has measured aerosols in a manner missed by 70 years worth of scientists, or he is motivated by defense of crap models and so produces crap.

I’m not sure where you perception of the effects of volcanic aerosols comes from, but it sure isn’t from the science.

“Researchers using satellite data found a link between surface temperatures and the impact from nearly 20 volcanic eruptions since 2000.”

Now, that’s simply what was found in the data. You probably want to argue with this data for various reasons…and that’s okay. But as you’re arguing, you might also want to hit the books and do some studying of the actual facts.

Gates, either you and Santer are fools or Sato and NASA engineers and scientists in charge of using satellite determination of atmospheric aerosols are liars, as they have reported their measurements over the last 23 years:-

‘Thermodynamics is a branch of natural science concerned with heat and temperature and their relation to energy and work. It defines macroscopic variables, such as internal energy, entropy, and pressure, that partly describe a body of matter or radiation. It states that the behavior of those variables is subject to general constraints, that are common to all materials, not the peculiar properties of particular materials. These general constraints are expressed in the four laws of thermodynamics.’ Wikipedia

What webby does is multiple linear regression of variables against the surface temperature. This is a matter of scaling variables to fit the temperature curve.

In no sense is this thermodynamics – in no way is it shown that all of the relevant variables are used – there is no chance that there is a unique solution – i.e x unknowns in 1 equation – there is no prediction at all – in writing or otherwise – and webby has not the slightest clue about secular climate regimes which is the only clue to decadal prediction we have.

‘Using this method, and by considering both internal natural climate variations and projected future anthropogenic forcing, we make the following forecast: over the next decade, the current Atlantic meridional overturning circulation will weaken to its long-term mean; moreover, North Atlantic SST and European and North American surface temperatures will cool slightly, whereas tropical Pacific SST will remain almost unchanged. Our results suggest that global surface temperature may not increase over the next decade, as natural climate variations in the North Atlantic and tropical Pacific temporarily offset the projected anthropogenic warming.’ http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7191/full/nature06921.html

Odd, isn’t it, that the volcano experts say there has been no increase in volcanic activity, but Gates assures us that climate scientists will prove the volcano scientists wrong.http://www.volcano.si.edu/faq.cfm#q6
Kind of reminds me of the time when the hurricane scientists disagreed with the climate scientists. And the scientists who study malaria. And the statisticians. And the physicists.
Every specialist in science is apparently a moron until a climate generalist comes along and tells them what’s what. Amazing field, can’t wait til it jumps in and fixes medical science.

You said wind is energy. It is not, unless you are stating the truism that e=mc2 according to Einstein. I know Warmists redefine words from moment to moment, but please be a little clearer if you wish to influence those who understand English.

I especially like the part about “do not make the mistake of conflating the high frequency, high resolution “2004″ data point with the smoothed low frequency, low resolution data in the curve” or the 1998 data point or betting on any 30 year period ever…..maybe the Royal Society has figured out exactly what all the temperature excursions throughout the Holocene were caused by.
Reprint from WUWT blog:
rgbatduke says:
February 7, 2014 at 10:34 am
A) The increase in temperature we have experienced during the 20th century is nothing unusual and is quite normal, and,
B) the rain and storms suffered by the people of the UK are also nothing unusual.
A) Which half? The increase in the first half of the 20th century is almost identical to the increase in the second half. The two halves are so nearly identical in form that unless you have studied them enough to be able to pick out specific features, you won’t be able to tell which one occurred with the hypothetical help of CO_2 and which one occurred without the hypothetical help of CO_2 when they are plotted on the same vertical relative scale and the same horizontal relative scale but with the actual dates obscured.
In the first half of the 20th century, not even the most ardent warmists claim that there was enough anthropogenic CO_2 in the atmosphere to have any measurable effect. The global industrial revolution that started the CO_2 crank was 1950′s on, and there was supposedly a lag of 30 years before that had any effect (to explain the fact that through the 50′s, 60′s, and early 70′s the temperature was pretty close to flat, which didn’t fit in well with the instantly well-mixed, instantly more strongly forcing picture of CO_2 emissions.
So as a matter of pure fact, the increase in temperature experienced during the 20th century was not unusual or abnormal in any way that can be definitively linked to anthropogenic activity as far as we can tell from the data! We had little to no impact on the first half, the warming in the second half matched that of the first half (with our hypothetical help), both halves were part of a perfectly reasonable continuing century-scale rebound from the lowest temperatures experienced on Earth since the Holocene Optimum during the Little Ice Age.
It’s amazing how ignorant people who participate in this debate with total certainty that our climate is unusual are of the “patient’s” history. I like to keep the patient’s chart for the last 12,000 years handy to help them learn:
Note well, this is smoothed. Note also that the error bars (never, ever shown in climate science) are probably as wide as the total variability envelope of all contributing reconstructions — an easy 1 to 2 C. As Lief pointed out above, reconstructing things like solar activity or temperature in the pre-instrumental era is neither easy nor precise, and the tiniest hint of bias or prior belief in the part of the researcher can effortlessly further cloud the proxy-based extrapolations by causing them to make countless small, almost harmless decisions that ultimately are cherrypicking of the data, comparing low temporal resolution data to high temporal resolution data to make erroneous statements about extremes, or ignoring the possibility of confounding causes or degradation of the data sources in those sources that match their “preferred” narrative at the expense of those that do not. If you count the assumptions — most of which cannot possibly be verified in the present — that go into reconstructions, there are many and each one contributes to increased uncertainty in the final claim.
Still, taking it for what it is worth — a possibly accurate reconstruction of the planet’s temperatures in the Holocene (post the Wisconsin glaciation, but including the Younger Dryas) that is at any rate the best we can do with the data and methods available (biased or not) at this time, what does it tell us?
First, the climate now is not warmer than it was in the Holocene Optimum (do not make the mistake of conflating the high frequency, high resolution “2004″ data point with the smoothed low frequency, low resolution data in the curve — even the figure’s caption warns against doing that — for the very good reason that in every 300 year smoothed upswing it is statistically certain that the upswing involved multidecadal intervals of temperatures much higher than the running mean. It is left as an exercise to the studio audience to figure out how to use contemporary high frequency climate data to make a numerically reasonable estimate of how much warmer than the smoothed average peak multidecadal intervals almost certainly were during the warming intervals seen throughout this graph. Goodness, I think it is easily 1+C, isn’t it!
Second, the LIA really was the coldest smoothed temperature interval in the entire Holocene. It was 11,000 years, during the warming phase that pulled us out of the glacial era, since the planet was as cold as it was in the general stretch from 1400 to 1900, embracing both the LIA and the following Dalton minimum. During this interval Earth’s glaciers grew, strongly, but do not mistake the level of glaciation observed in (say) 1870 as being normal. For most of the gradually cooling Holocene, it would have been extremely abnormal. As I said, the patient fell through the ice into the river, and probably came within a hair of falling under the ice, to be trapped in another 90,000 year cycle of glaciation before the next interglacial.
Third, note well our profound degree of ignorance as to the cause of any of the features on this curve, granting that they are “features” at all — remember, the noise is on the same scale as the signal so every single bounce on this curve could be noise as far as the data is concerned. It is only what amounts to anecdotal reporting in human histories that gives us the opportunity to at least partially affirm events like the Roman Warm Period, the Medieval Warm Period, the Minoan Warm Period — bobbles visible on this curve that do in fact correspond with historical times where there is direct evidence of warm temperatures, favorable climates for agriculture even at high latitudes and indeed generally benign climate conditions. Throughout human history, warm intervals have been the best of times, even when they were warmer than it is today, and the many eco-disasters being projected on the basis of failing climate models did not, in fact, occur even when the climate was much warmer than it is today.
Human models cannot predict any portion of this curve. We have the crudest of hypotheses that collectively might explain the glacial/interglacial pattern of the Pliestocene (including the Wisconsin and Holocene) in terms of long term coincidences in orbital eccentricity, axial tilt as the planet’s axis precesses, oscillations up and down in the plane of the ecliptic, the movements of the continental plates, the consequent (sometimes “dramatic”) variation in oceanic circulation, against a background of volcanic activity that can “punch” the system with a mix of rapidly varying aerosols, soot and greenhouse gases with unknown but possible heavily delayed feedback from the plastic motion of the Earth’s crust itself in response to growing or melting glaciers and the associated changes in high latitude albedo. Sure. Probably, even. But try computing on the basis of these collective hypotheses and then predicting the future unforced climate, in a chaotic system with strong, nonlinear, internal feedbacks on all of the shorter timescales driving temperatures up or down by degrees C completely independent of the 1000 year plus timescale drivers.
We are fortunate that the climate was, and probably still is, rebounding from the LIA completely independent of CO_2. Even if CO_2 is the fed-back devil the most catastrophic of warmists asserts it to be, the general trend of the Holocene towards overall cooler temperatures might make it the more desired of two evils; warming up to Holocene Optimum temperatures is surely far less likely to be destructive than any sort of plunge in temperatures, whether to LIA cold-but-manageable temperatures or to the next glacial era. Evidence from past glaciations suggests that the Earth can kick over into rapid glacier growth in as little as a century and literally plunge back into the deep freeze and kilometer-thick ice down to the latitude of New York or Pennsylvania.
There is one other graph that is entertaining to look at. The chart up above, revealing as it is, is only the chart for the last few days of the patient’s life. Here’s the chart for the patient over the post-adolescent years (the last 550 million years):
Goodness, what does this chart tell us? That there is one single interval in the last 600 million years when the Earth has been as cold as it is today, climate wise. This is on a scale that makes the Pliestocene ice age that we are currently in seem small. The Earth’s temperature has been systematically dropping for since the end of the Cretaceous, and is currently colder (climate wise) than any interval since the Ordovician-Silurian transition, which (incidentally) began with atmospheric CO_2 levels of 7000 ppm — almost a full percent CO_2, and reached its minimum temperatures with sustained atmospheric CO_2 levels of 4000 ppm — 10 times the levels we have today. For this, we don’t even have a hypothesis — we have mere science fiction (the solar system drifting through an enormous cloud of space dust, asteroid impacts, fill in the blank). We have no possible way to go back in time to observe, and no credible way to obtain data on any of the myriad of possible causes.
You can click through the last 65 million years — bad news all the way — to 5 million years, where we note that our warmest temperatures in the interglacials are still not as warm as the mean, stable temperatures of 3.5 million years ago by 1 to 2 C, and that the interglacials themselves are a decreasing fraction of the time up to the present, where currently we spend 80 to 90 thousand years locked up in earth-crushing glaciers compared to 10 thousand years of interglacial, where the ice retreats to the point where humans can thrive.
All of human civilization arose in the Holocene interglacial. Think on that.

Thanks for noticing. Yes, I include factors that scientists such as Scafetta and Curry think are important in the models. Other scientists may think these are numerological arguments. I say put the numbers in there and see what shakes out.

So I do that and what shakes out is that the effects are real but small in magnitude. You can almost predict that because cyclic data cycles and cancels itself out every cycle. What is left as a residual is the secular forcing function, which all deniers refuse to believe can be CO2. But it is, and then they get mad because I executed exactly what they desired.

They dont do the complete analysis themselves or fabricate some roundabout approach because they know what the result will be.

Web,
You can almost predict that because cyclic data cycles and cancels itself out every cycle. What is left as a residual is the secular forcing function, which all deniers refuse to believe can be CO2.

The interval from 1880 to 1950 contains sufficient information for training to be able to accurately predict the warming trend AND fluctuations after 1950.

This is amazing and it is because there is a sufficient CO2 signal underlying the data up to 1950 to be able to fill in the rest, given we have knowledge of the thermodynamic forcing parameters after 1950.

WebHubTelescope: This is amazing and it is because there is a sufficient CO2 signal underlying the data up to 1950 to be able to fill in the rest, given we have knowledge of the thermodynamic forcing parameters after 1950.

is the SOI a thermodynamic forcing parameter?

Proof that the Cause of the Pause is explained by thermodynamic Laws.

Have you shared this with writers who maintain that the Pause is not happening? Can you tell how long the Pause will last?

If the cause of the pause is explained by the laws
Then how come the models didn’t see it coming?
And if the models couldn’t see that
Why should we believe they can tell us
What’s going to happen in 80 years?

But if you want to talk about predictions, since 1979, climate scientists have predicted an ECS of 3C for doubling of CO2, and all observed data is still showing this. One can plot defluctuated temperature against CO2 since 1880 and see this:

The first thing to do is see who wrote it, and they are acknowledge on page 34/36.

And that is all I am going to read. It’s guaranteed to be semi-garbage due to this list. There are literally thousands of climate scientists, yet we always get the same perspective over and over. Not credible.

To be fair, in answer to Question 4 ‘What role has the Sun played in climate change in recent decades ?’ they do show two graphs (Global Average Surface Temperature 1980-2010 and Measurement of the Sun’s Energy 1980-2010) which shows that the current pause in warming agrees well with the current low solar activity.

“The composition of the atmosphere is changing towards conditions that have not been experienced for millions of years, so we are headed for unknown territory, and uncertainty is large. The climate system involves many competing processes that could switch the climate into a different state once a threshold has been exceeded.”
_____
Good stuff. Right on target.

The climate system involves many competing processes that could switch the climate into a different state once a threshold has been exceeded.

Not just climate, the global ecosystem“involves many competing processes that could switch the” climate system ” into a different state once a threshold has been exceeded.” The focus on “climate” is almost a red herring.

With the Global Precipitation Mission being launched today it is timely to note that precipitation holds the key to the answer to the trillion dollar question which is “Does gravity induce an autonomous temperature gradient in all solids, liquids and gases?”

Josef Loschmidt first postulated that it would in the 19th century. Dr Hans Jelbring worked on it for his PhD and published a paper about a decade back. Now physicists are starting to realise that it is indeed a reality, and this can be shown using the Second Law of Thermodynamics in conjunction with Kinetic Theory.

But, most compelling of all is the empirical evidence which I have presented in a book “Why it’s not carbon dioxide after all” being released late April. Temperature and precipitation records are used to show that regions with higher precipitation do in fact have lower mean daily maximum and minimum temperatures than drier regions at similar latitudes and altitudes.

This means water vapour cools. And this is evidence that gravity produces a “dry” gradient (aka lapse rate) at the molecular level (not requiring a hot surface or upward convection) and water vapour then reduces that gradient (as is well known) due to inter-molecular radiation (not well known) and this leads to lower surface temperatures.

Null Hypothesis: “There is no pause in the increase of arctic sea ice minimum extent”

The Global Data: Up-to-Date as of September 2013! (source: http://climate.nasa.gov/news/986)
“Analysis of satellite data by NSIDC and NASA showed that the sea ice extent shrunk to 1.97 million square miles (5.10 million square kilometers).
This year’s sea ice extent is substantially higher than last year’s….1.32 million square miles” – an approximately 50% increase!!!

An Open Question: What data-driven statistical test (if any) suffices to reject the null hypothesis (“there is no pause”) with P &lt 0.05?

Conclusion: since we cannot reject the null hypothesis, arctic sea ice extent will continue to increase at more than three times the current rate per year until all the earth’s oceans are covered in ice! This is obviously due to human emission of aerosols (what else could it be?), compounded by feedback factors such as increasing albedo.

Billy D incorrectly mixed up a continuation of a trend with termination of a trend.

A pause implies a statistical change in the data has occurred. It both admits a previous warming or ice loss trend exists but also claims it has suddenly stopped.

The burden of proof is on those claiming there is a pause to show the trend has stopped, and as Fan points out this necessary work hasn’t been done.

The null hypothesis is that the trend continues.

Billy D’s example has him reversing this to essentially say we can’t prove the trend hasn’t stopped. But that’s nuts. We can never prove the trend hasn’t stopped. The trend could stop at any time no matter what the previous data is.

The warming “trend” of the late 20thC has stopped
Since 2001, the “trend” has been one of slight cooling.
No one knows how long this cooling trend will last
It occurred despite the fact that the IPCC models predictedprojected warming of 0.2C per decade
IOW, the models failed to foresee the pause in warming
Yet these same models are supposed to have predictive power to the year 2100?

I have no problem with you or Fan’s viewpoints. In fact, I agree with your position more than I do with most of the commenters here.

My issue is with Fan’s supposed “scientific” proposal. A null hypothesis of “the trend continues” is horribly formed and displays remarkable ignorance of the scientific method. You can come to the same conclusion just by reading a dictionary. Here’s a few web citations from a number of different fields (all from the first page of a Google search):

Google: “In statistical inference of observed data of a scientific experiment, the null hypothesis refers to a general or default position: that there is no relationship between two measured phenomena”
Wikipedia: “In statistical inference of observed data of a scientific experiment, the null hypothesis refers to a general or default position: that there is no relationship between two measured phenomena”
Investopedia: “A type of hypothesis used in statistics that proposes that no statistical significance exists in a set of given observations. The null hypothesis attempts to show that no variation exists between variables, or that a single variable is no different than zero.”
Biology Online: “An assumption or proposition where an observed difference between two samples of a statistical population is purely accidental and not due to systematic causes.”
Chemistry: “The null hypothesis is the proposition that implies no effect or no relationship between phenomena. The null hypothesis is popular because it can be tested and found to be false, which then implies there is a relationship between the observed data”
Statistics and Probability: “The null hypothesis, denoted by H0, is usually the hypothesis that sample observations result purely from chance.”

Global warming implies the opposite; it is an alternative hypothesis that (1) assumes there is a relationship between human emissions of greenhouse gases and global temperatures, and (2) results in a trend that is statistically different than zero (or pure chance).

But let’s look at his “null hypothesis” from two other perspectives: historical and practical.

First, we have a planet that is approximately 4.6 billion years old, from which we can create fairly accurate historical representations of temperature and atmospheric content. In the last 100 million years of that history alone, temperatures are likely to have been as much as 10 degrees C higher and 5 degrees C lower than our current temperature; that’s remarkably consistent (in my opinion) given the span of time we’re talking about. A timeline that long supports a null hypothesis of relative stasis in climate, particularly over very short periods of time. What Fan would like to do is change the null hypothesis based on a 30-year period of data (surface warming since from 1970 to 2000 is generally agreed to be caused primarily by humans) and a global temperature change of approximately 0.6 degrees over that period of time. At the same time, he would likely agree that the vast majority of a 0.5 degree swing over the 30-year period from 1910 to 1940 (using HADCRUT4) was not caused by the same thing. Historically, in my opinion, that’s unsupportable. It doesn’t mean CAGW isn’t occurring (I think it is and will continue to do so), it just means it can’t be the null hypothesis.

From a practical perspective, his H0 is even worse. It is extremely important to be specific and quantify a null hypothesis. What, exactly, is the trend? Where do we start? Where do we finish? If we assume the trend is defined by the average of the CMIP 3/5 models’ surface temperature, divergence from Fan’s “null hypothesis” is close to the level of statistical significance. If it’s the current trend, it can’t be disproven. If it’s just warming, you won’t be able to disprove his hypothesis even if the temperature stays exactly the same for 500 years.

I know this new Null Hypothesis crap wasn’t something Fan invented. Look, I’m a guy who thinks the CAGW consensus is largely correct and believes we should do something about it. But the need to do something doesn’t justify changing the scientific method and redefining terms. We should live and die by the science, and if it doesn’t fit, we should be willing to revise our alternate hypothesis.

“The capability of climate models has improved steadily since
the 1960s. Using physics-based equations, the models can
be tested and are successful in simulating a broad range of
weather and climate variations, for example from individual
storms, jet stream meanders, El Niño events, and the climate
of the last century. Their projections of the most prominent
features of the long-term human-induced climate change signal
have remained robust, as generations of increasingly complex
models yield richer details of the change. They are also used
to perform experiments to isolate specific causes of climate
change and to explore the consequences of different scenarios
of future greenhouse gas emissions and other influences on
climate.”

I’m having a hard time agreeing with that summation. Putting the projection – observation divergence next to this would have made for quite a contrast.

The last paragraph of the RS answer to question 2 has to be part of the pushback against criticism of GCMs. I thought there was a certain amount of ‘consensus’, even among supporters, that GCMs fail to reproduce a variety of observed climate phenomena. Yet the RS cites their weakness in reproducing natural/internal variation in simulations as evidence for the dominant role of CO2. This opens up all sorts of possibilities for a new theory of scientific confirmation. The less a theory explains, the better the evidence it is valid!

The RS should probably have settled for the basic physics and the energy balance.

I do think that there was a time in the past of the RS, when they did have deep thoughts and there was a time when they questioned everything and you had to offer them real actual data to get them to change their opinion about anything.

They were exposed to a really dangerous virus and 97% of them did get the virus and it is only curable in 3% of the cases. Actually it is curable at a higher rate than 3%, but they can kick out the people who disagree fast enough to maintain their 97% consensus clique.

The name of the deadly virus is “Consensus”. You have likely heard of it. Avoid it if possible. Liberals are extremely susceptible. Conservatives have more resistance. Democrats are more susceptible. Republicans are more resistant. Children are the most at risk. We need to keep this virus out of our schools and out of the media and away from our Children.

If this was a highschool debating competition then this document would represent the case ‘for’ the motion. In the sense that it doesn’t pickup on any of the uncertainties in the science, it doesn’t even acknowledge that fact that on some subjects there is disagreement among the ‘mainstream’ on aspects of the science, For example the exact cause of the hiatus. In that sense it fails to be a true representation of the state of the science and largely demands a rebuttal.

This is not a high school debating competition no matter how much you deniers wish it was — perhaps trying to relive past glory. One doesn’t rhetorically debate science, especially when the evidence is as lop-sided as it is now.
The hiatus or pause is obvious to those that understand the mechanisms, its you high schoolers that have convinced yourself that it means something else.

I know this isn’t a highschool debate that’s why I used the word “if”, Maybe if you took some time to read things through before discharging your comment then you would find yourself looking less like an idiot.

With respect to the cause of the hiatus I find many climate scientists put forward multiple causes for it in an unquantified way ( eg Ed Hawkins),, some have tried to quantify some of those causes, often in ways that are mutually incompatible. I don’t think that that is anything but a good thing that scientists are trying to come up with an explanation but I don’t think it represent the ‘done deal’ that you seem to think it is.

I disagree to some extent with you Steve. From the weekly lab meeting through to publications and conferences there is always competing ideas about how to interpret results and about meaning in data. Agreed that ultimately that will be resolved through experimentation not debate but challenging things with competing ideas is a spur to greater understanding.

‘The top-of-atmosphere (TOA) Earth radiation budget (ERB) is determined from the difference between how much energy is absorbed and emitted by the planet. Climate forcing results in an imbalance in the TOA radiation budget that has direct implications for global climate, but the large natural variability in the Earth’s radiation budget due to fluctuations in atmospheric and ocean dynamics complicates this picture.’ http://meteora.ucsd.edu/~jnorris/reprints/Loeb_et_al_ISSI_Surv_Geophys_2012.pdf

So here is the ‘consensus’ ‘forcing’ from NOAA.

Mostly natural up to the mid 1970’s – most of the year to year variability is explained by ENSO – followed by a big increase in anthropogenic forcing.

So what has changed since then? A small decrease in TSI? A small increase in volcanic activity? Perhaps – but the narrative requires that energy continues to accumulate in the oceans.

So what do we know about ocean heat content?

‘Comparisons of global steric height trends based on different gridded fields of Argo in situ measurements show a range of 0–1mm/yr which can be lead back to data handling and climatology uncertainties. Our results show that GOIs derived from the Argo measurements are ideally suitable to monitor the state of the global ocean, especially after November 2007, i.e. when Argo sampling was 100% complete. They also show that there is significant interannual global variability at global scale, especially for global OFC. Before the end of 2007, error bars are too large to deliver robust short-term trends of GOIs and thus an interpretation in terms of long-term climate signals are still questionable, especially since uncertainties due to interannual fluctuations are not included in our error estimation. This will certainly change with the growing set of Argo measurements as also denoted by our calculations.’ http://www.ocean-sci-discuss.net/8/999/2011/osd-8-999-2011.pdf

Given the ‘large natural variability in the Earth’s radiation budget’ – which figures not at all in the narrative – we know little enough about the causes and extent of ocean heat changes in the past decade. What we do know suggests that any short term warming was in the shortwave – from changes in cloud cover – and that this has since turned around.

What we do know suggests a step change in the global energy budget following the 1998/2001 climate shift. This in turn makes Question 19 the central problem for climate science – and the treatment of this issue is cursory at best. The modeling approach to this problem is known to be utterly inadequate. The propensity for climate shifts at decadal scales – with implications for global energy budgets – suggests the potential for multiple climate shifts this century.

The whole thing – frankly – seems trapped in an anachronism wrapped in post hoc rationalization. Let’s do the time warp again, again and again. This version is much more fun.

The Climate Blog World is dominated by Skeptical Blogs. Most of them have one or more Climate Scientists who were kicked out of the 97% Clique. Dr. Judy Curry comes to mind first. I don’t think Dr. Fred Singer was ever in the clique. Dr John Coleman was never in the clique.
The consensus side has 97% consensus. They don’t have a list for us to check. We know the names of Hansen and Mann and some of the others who get the most media attention. We have no idea who the other fifty or a hundred that make up the rest. We don’t have a document that they signed that says that they do believe in the consensus and what it exactly that they do believe.
On the skeptical side, I have seen the names of many thousands who put their names out there as being skeptical.

I want to see the Consensus Statement and the Actual Names and verification that they really did sign.
I believe the IPCC ten thousand is more likely less than one hundred who might have have been really willing to have signed a 97% statement. I believe that most of the ten thousand were nowhere near when the 97% statement was created. Many of them likely would lose their jobs it they ever said they would not have signed. Someone should question the ten thousand. The Thousands of skeptics who signed up for being skeptical would mostly say who they are. Oops, they already signed, so we already know who they are. We need the Consensus Names.
It is way past time to find out what people are really willing to stake their future in science on.

Looks like environmentalist and Greenpeace co-founder, Patrick Moore, disagrees with the Royal Society political leadership.

Washington, Feb 27 (ANI): Patrick Moore, co-founder and former member of Greenpeace, has claimed that climate change is not manmade.

Moore, a Canadian ecologist, told members of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee that environmentalists use faulty computer models and scare tactics in promoting claims man-made gases are heating up the planet, Fox News reported.

Moore asserted that there is no evidence that human emissions of carbon dioxide are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years.

Even if the planet is warming up, Moore claimed that it would not be calamitous for men.

Moore added that he left Greenpeace in the 1980s because he believed it became more interested in politics than science, adding that climate change was not an issue when he abandoned Greenpeace, but it certainly is now. (ANI)

It is unclear who are the exact founders of Greenpeace International. There is no recorded official founder, but the organization began with the Amchitka protest led by the small group who first called themselves the Don’t Make A Wave Committee. Included in this activist group were:
• Paul Cote, a law student at the University of British Columbia
• Jim Bohlen, a former deep-sea diver and radar operator in the US Navy
• Irving Stowe, a Quaker and Yale-educated lawyer
• Patrick Moore, an ecology student at the University of British Columbia
• Bill Darnell, a social worker. (Greenpeace)

He has ties with the nuclear energy industry but not with oil companies, as far as I can tell.

Just to get the facts straight.

As far as “shill” is concerned, I do not believe that he is an IPCC “shill”, like some others who will remain unnamed..

”
In 1970, the Don’t Make A Wave Committee was established; its sole objective was to stop a second nuclear weapons test at Amchitka Island in the Aleutians.

The committee’s founders were Dorothy and Irving Stowe, Marie and Jim Bohlen, Ben and Dorothy Metcalfe, and Bob Hunter. Its first directors were Stowe, Bohlen, and a student named Paul Cote.

Canadian ecologist Bill Darnell came up with the dynamic combination of words to bind together the group’s concern for the planet and opposition to nuclear arms. In the words of Bob Hunter, “Somebody flashed two fingers as we were leaving the church basement and said “Peace!” Bill said “Let’s make it a Green Peace. And we all went Ommmmmmmm.” Jim Bohlen’s son Paul, having trouble making the two words fit on a button, linked them together into the committee’s new name: Greenpeace.

Stowe, who suffered from sea-sickness, stayed on shore to coordinate political pressure. Cote stayed behind too, because he was about to represent Canada in an Olympic sailing race.

Bob Hunter would take the lessons of that first voyage forward and improvise upon them to the point that he, more than anyone else, invented Greenpeace’s brand of individual activism.

The Amchitka voyage established the group’s name in Canada. Greenpeace’s next journey spread their reputation across the world.

In 1972, David McTaggart answered an ad placed in a New Zealand newspaper by Ben Metcalfe, calling for a ship to go to Morouroa Atoll to protest nuclear weapons testing there. McTaggart chose the following crew:
• Nigel Ingram, ex-Royal Navy
• Roger Haddleton, ex-Royal Navy
• Grant Davidson, a good cook

Their ship was rammed, and on his return the next year McTaggart was beaten by French commandos to the point where he lost vision in one eye. An epic battle played out in media around the world as a tiny ship challenged one of the greatest military forces on Earth.

For the next two decades, McTaggart would vie with the French government over nuclear weapons testing at sea and in the courts, and rise to the leadership of Greenpeace worldwide.

At a point when separatist Greenpeace national and regional entities were taking legal action against one another, the successful businessman and athlete stepped in and settled the arguments by founding Greenpeace International.
“

No Patrick Moore? WHUT’s up wid dat? Maybe WUWT should get on the case?

This is a message to the members of both academies. If this house of cards falls, I will not accept that reports like this were the responsibility of a select few who happened to have control of the bus.

All of you who remained silent will be similarly stained. Your trust and credibility will be lost for a long, long time. And believe me, in this digital age, it will be trivial to reconstruct and convey this story to the public.

” A short-term slowdown in the warming of Earth’s surface does not invalidate our understanding of long-term changes in global temperature arising from human-induced changes in greenhouse gases.”

There we go again. I have pointed out many times that the term “greenhouse gas” is just an analogy. There is no greenhouse in the sky, so the term has no scientific meaning, although the IPCC uses it as if it were.. It simply covers up a lack of true scientific understanding of the role of atmospheric gases in climate.

One of the consequences of the shallow understanding of the role of CO2 in climate change is that the science community has failed to recognize the on/off nature of climate change. This was most evident in the 1940 temperature singularity which should have alerted the scientific community to the problem. So, to this day, we lack an understanding of how CO2 can have such a profound affect on temperature

At the moment, Met Office spokespersons sound extraordinary, bizarre even. They bleat out ‘global warming’ phrases like programmed robotic sheep, although they are finding it increasingly difficult to pull the wool over our eyes. It is terribly 1984, and rather chilling, so to speak. It is obvious that the organisation is suffering from another classical academic state, namely that known as ‘cognitive dissonance’… This is experienced when belief in a Grand Narrative persists blindly, even when the facts in the real world begin to contradict what the narrative is saying. Sadly, many of our public and private organisations have allowed themselves to develop far too great a vested interest in ‘global warming’, as have too many politicians and activists. These are increasingly terrified, many having no idea how to react, or how to adjust, to the collapse. It will be particularly interesting to witness how, in the end, the Royal Society plays its cards, especially if competing scientific paradigms, such as the key role played by water vapour in climate change, start to displace the current paradigm in classic fashion.

With great regard for the depth to which the research behind this report was written. It makes no mention of the cotton-mouton effect (light going through ice crystals in the atmosphere have one of their phases “skewed” more or less, depending on the strength of the magnetic field it is in.). I think to call a report, or it’s conclusion comprehensive, the effects of this property of ice needs to be investigated. Further the variability of radioactive decay as evidenced by researchers at Stanford and Purdue, and other labs which provides strong evidence of a direct link between solar activity and the earth’s base temperature, sunlight not included. And add’s some doubt to measurements of the past that are based on radioactive decay. We may find that the “time travel” experiments that some researchers are doing, orbiting the earth, are in fact just experiencing accelerated radioactive decay in their very precise atomic clocks, and not actually time traveling. (sorry guys). This can be related to the time clocks in the GPS satellites which have to resynch their time, in because it varies due to the strength of the magnetic fields they fly through. So with radioactive decay, now known to be related to the creation of 45% (best guess) of earths internal heat, I think potential impact needs to also be taken into account, even if to be relegated as insignificant, just because they are related. If you consider as evidence for flow of charge from the Local Interstellar Cloud, to the sun, then out at it’s equator, with us, 1/100th of the way between the sun’s output and it’s target the heliosphere, and being the most magnetic planet in the solar system, we are a favorite target. Recent data from Voyager probe helps quantify this, and it is a large number. we know that CME’s effect the earth, we see that in auroras and burned out electrical systems. considering that same energy has an effect on cloud’s light scattering ability, cloud formation potential, you can see there is another link – direct sun to earth, where CO2 is irrelevant.

When the sun’s activity and the earths temperature being shown to be as strongly linked as they are (grand minimums), the concern about a runaway carbon cycle, becomes null and void because it would explain the magnitude of the peaks and valleys of the temperature history, validate Milankovitches theory of orbital variations, also provide the reason why it matters as much as it does, which side of the earth is facing the sun. Because shifts in pole facings make that much difference to the energy pouring into the pole that has no land, or the one at the other side. And there is more ocean facing the sun, more opportunity for evaporation (as we know), but also a difference to what percentage of the earth is undergoing what strength of magenetic activity, and that affects birefringement.

As I don’t see a mention of radioactive decay being variable, or birefringement being variable, I can’t consider this document comprehensive. Sorry.

Any sober, rational, minimally intelligent person would see this report for the nonsense it is.

In any event, it’s just another complete waste of time, effort and money, by people who demonstrate complete indifference to the plight of many of the people whose poverty allows the inept and incompetent to pursue their hobbies. Name just one climatological science benefit to anyone other than a participant in the grand climatological science ego stroking industry.

Here are my non-political answers to the “20 questions”.
(Anyone care to try to refute them?)


1. Is the climate warming?Well, the “globally and annually averaged land and sea surface and tropospheric temperatures were warming over the last three decades as well as the first three decades of the 20thC. In between and since the beginning of the new millennium the record shows it has not warmed.

3. CO2 is already in the atmosphere naturally, so why are emissions from human activity significant?They add to the total, although around half is being absorbed by the biosphere / lithosphere / oceans and, interestingly, this fraction is increasing by around 1% per decade. Higher CO2 levels are significant because they support increased plant growth. Based on laboratory data on CO2 absorption of LW energy, climate models also estimate that higher CO2 levels will cause perceptible global warming, although this has not yet been corroborated by empirical evidence.

4. What role has the Sun played in climate change in recent decades?Changes in direct solar irradiance alone have not caused much of a change, but there is a low level of scientific understanding about the total effect on climate of changes in solar activity. It undoubtedly had a major impact in the past, so there is good reason to estimate that it also has a significant impact today, even if the exact mechanism is not yet fully understood.

5. What do changes in the vertical structure of atmospheric temperature – from the surface up to the stratosphere – tell us about the causes of recent climate change?Unfortunately, not too much. Greenhouse theory would have the tropospheric temperature warming more rapidly than that at the surface, but the record during the late 20thC warming cycle showed just the opposite.

6. Climate is always changing. Why is climate change of concern now?This is more of a political issue than a real climate or economic issue. A study by Richard Tol shows us that global warming has been beneficial for humanity to date, and that it will continue being beneficial on balance until temperature is 2ºC warmer than today, and even higher if low energy costs can be maintained. Even according to IPCC worst case scenarios, this is not expected to occur until late in this century, at which time there will arguably be all sorts of economically and environmentally viable alternates to fossil fuels, which do not yet exist today, making the whole postulated problem redundant.

7. Is the current level of atmospheric CO2 concentration unprecedented in Earth’s history?No. Based on paleoclimate data, there were periods in Earth’s early history during which CO2 levels were several times as high as today, yet temperatures were lower (“Ordovician Snowball Earth”, for example).

8. Is there a point at which adding more CO2 will not cause further warming?No. However, the CO2 temperature relationship is logarithmic, so added CO2 has a decreasing warming impact on temperature as it rises. Between 280 and 380 ppmv the models tell us that CO2 should have caused warming at equilibrium of 0.5ºC (out of an observed total of ~1ºC). Between 880ppmv and 980ppmv (the upper limit based on fossil fuel availability) the increase would theoretically only be 0.2ºC.

9. Does the rate of warming vary from one decade to another?Yes. The rate fluctuates cyclically in ~30 year cycles of warming followed by ~30 cycles of slight cooling. We just completed a cycle of warming and appear to be entering a similar cycle of slight cooling.

10. Does the recent slowdown of warming mean that climate change is no longer happening?Of course not. Climate has always changed and will always continue to do so.

11. If the world is warming, why are some winters and summers still very cold?No one really knows the answer to this question, least of all the climate models, which have not predicted this, but there are several hypotheses out there.

12. Why is Arctic sea ice reducing while Antarctic sea ice is not?The models cited by IPCC cannot explain why the Antarctic sea ice is growing. As a result, they also do not know for sure why the Arctic sea ice is shrinking, as it apparently did in the 1920s and 1930s, before satellite altimetry.

13. How does climate change affect the strength and frequency of floods, droughts, hurricanes and tornadoes?It is uncertain whether man-made climate change has any impact on these, as the records do not show any increase.

14. How fast is sea level rising?The historical tide gauge record shows us that sea level has risen over the past 150-200 years at a long-term average rate of around 1.7 to 2.0 mm per year. Over the 20thC the decadal average rate of change fluctuated significantly: from -1mm/year to +5 mm/year, with an average rate for the first half century of +2.0 mm/year and +1.4 mm/year for the second half. Satellite altimetry is now being used to measure this, covering a totally different scope than the tide gauges, and with some serious accuracy problems so far. These indicate that the most recent rate has been around +3mm/year.

15. What is ocean acidification and why does it matter?”Acidification” is a misnomer, since the oceans are alkaline and ocean chemistry is quite complicated. There is a lot of hype, but no evidence that it matters.

16. How confident are scientists that Earth will warm further over the coming century?This depends on which scientists you ask. Those who support the IPCC “consensus” opinion will probably tell you that it will rise monotonically with human CO2 emissions. Others, such as many solar scientists, are not so sure, because the unusually active solar cycles of the 20thC have been replaced with less active cycles 23 and 24. But, all in all, most scientists believe that the Earth will continue warming for a while yet, as it has since we have emerged from the Little Ice Age.

17. Are climate changes of a few degrees a cause for concern?Not really. See above reference to the Tol study.

18. What are scientists doing to address key uncertainties in our understanding of the climate system?Several studies have been made over the past three years to better identify the CO2 temperature impact based on actual observations. These have shown that the model-predicted 2xCO2 climate sensitivity estimates were very likely too high by a factor of around two. IPCC has not acknowledged these studies, however, preferring to stay with their old estimates, which have not changed appreciably since 1995. (Unbelievable!) So it is probably true to say that, while climate scientists are addressing the key uncertainties, IPCC is not particularly interested in any results, which dissent from its premise of alarming anthropogenic climate change.

19. Are disaster scenarios about tipping points like ‘turning off the Gulf Stream’ and release of methane from the Arctic a cause for concern?No. This is simply fear mongering.

20. If emissions of greenhouse gases were stopped, would the climate return to the conditions of 200 years ago?No one can really answer that question, because the long-term residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere is unknown (IPCC has estimated it at between 50 and 200 years and other estimates cite a half life of around 100 years). Since a significant part of the change in climate over the past 200 years was due to natural factors and a transitioning out of the Little Ice Age, it is unlikely that climate would return to the harsher conditions of the Little Ice Age. But this is a purely hypothetical question, because human GHG emissions will not stop until an economically and environmentally viable alternate to fossil fuels is developed.

Excellent answers. .. Solar cycles keep coming up as a dominate force in climate change no matter which path I take. Since I’ve looked at solar cycles before the IPCC came into existence, if the cycles repeats, we could very well be in for another LIA. Only time will tell.

“Excellent answers. .. Solar cycles keep coming up as a dominate force in climate change no matter which path I take. Since I’ve looked at solar cycles before the IPCC came into existence, if the cycles repeats, we could very well be in for another LIA. Only time will tell.”
—–
Except of course that solar cycles in and of themselves are not sufficient to explain the LIA.

“19. Are disaster scenarios about tipping points like ‘turning off the Gulf Stream’ and release of methane from the Arctic a cause for concern?
No. This is simply fear mongering.”
——-
The climate record indicates that sudden shifts in climate are quite possible and likely in the future, but more likely to come from unexpected chaotic dynamics, rather than the ones listed here. Whether or not anthropogenic forcing can tip the system in such a rapid and unpredictable way remains quite open, and far from the certainty of “no”.

Much more needs to be done to reconcile the long term findings from tidal gauges with the more recent altimetry data. They are measuring different things and since we are concerned about the land/sea interface the tidal gauges give a more accurate picture of the threats to those zones

Houston and Dean certainly show a less cataclysmic future with their study of the tidal gauges than does the satellite record.. This should be a tip that the continents are perhaps making adjustments with their tectonic shifts.

“8. Is there a point at which adding more CO2 will not cause further warming?
No. However, the CO2 temperature relationship is logarithmic, so added CO2 has a decreasing warming impact on temperature as it rises. Between 280 and 380 ppmv the models tell us that CO2 should have caused warming at equilibrium of 0.5ºC (out of an observed total of ~1ºC). Between 880ppmv and 980ppmv (the upper limit based on fossil fuel availability) the increase would theoretically only be 0.2ºC. ”

Just a quick check on Wikipedia yields 33 C total difference due to the “Greenhouse effect”. With CO2 listed at between 9-26% of that effect. So CO2 should have between 3.0 to 8.6 C total effect. I realize that you are talking about the change rather than the total, but I am having trouble figuring out where you come up with these changes.

Note that I am assuming two decimal places of accuracy, but have no real indication that such is correct as Wikipedia is inconsistent. I also checked Earth’s Annual Global Mean Energy Budget by J. T. Kiehl and Kevin E. Trenberth. They are not consistent either.

I am also assuming that the paper quoted above used 1997 (the date of the report) concentrations of CO2 for their budget.

My questions that I have about your derivation are;
1. What is the baseline CO2 ppmv that you are using?
2. At that baseline what is the contribution of temperature to CO2?
3. What date is the 0.5 C and 280 to 380 ppmv from (I am assuming it is some date in the past when someone published something).
4. The 880 ppmv to 980 ppmv is based on current estimates of fossil fuel availability, right?
5. The 280 to 380 ppmv and the 880 ppmv to 980 ppmv ranges are due to annual changes in concentration, correct? The values are measured to two decimal places of accuracy, but because of seasonal changes a range needs to be given rather than a single value.
6. Which model did you use and what sensitivity to get 0.5 C?
7. What sensitivity value did you use to get 0.2 C?

I am not saying that your numbers are incorrect. There are many factors that go into the numbers, though, and different models will of course result in different numbers.

I also do understand your point that each additional increase in CO2 concentration will yield less warming than the previous did and this is true regardless of the numbers you use. However, I think it is important to point out all of the assumptions that go into making this sort of forecast, and the huge uncertainties in doing so.

Further, the question that I would really like answered (which is not what you where trying to do at all) is when the concentration of CO2 reaches theoretical zero, does the total warming effect also go to zero, or is there some warming (or cooling) left over due to feedbacks? Basically does the formulation being used make sense at the endpoints?

1. What is the baseline CO2 ppmv that you are using?from the first 100 ppmv increment resulting from humans, 280 ppmv to 380 ppmv, it is 280 ppmv. From the last increment resulting from fossil fuel combustion, 880ppmv to 980 ppmv, it is 880 ppmv. In both cases, the logarithmic relation is used.

2. At that baseline what is the contribution of temperature to CO2?Using Myhre et al. a doubling of CO2 results in 3.71 W/m^2 forcing, which causes warming of around 1C.

3. What date is the 0.5 C and 280 to 380 ppmv from (I am assuming it is some date in the past when someone published something).280 ppmv is the level estimated by IPCC based on ice core data as “pre-industrial”, occurring around 1750. 380 ppmv is simply 100 ppmv higher (it happened to occur around 2005/2006, based on Mauna Loa measurement).

4. The 880 ppmv to 980 ppmv is based on current estimates of fossil fuel availability, right?Yes. It is based upon a WEC 2010 report on total inferred possible recoverable fossil fuel resources remaining on our planet in 2008, i.e. around 85% of the total resource at the beginning of human consumption, implying that we have used 15% to date. The first 15% got us from an estimated 280 ppmv to a level of 385 ppmv, measured in 2008, so the remaining 85% would get us to 980 ppmv when they are all gone:
385 ppmv + 0.85 * (385 – 280) / 0.15 = 980 ppmv

5. The 280 to 380 ppmv and the 880 ppmv to 980 ppmv ranges are due to annual changes in concentration, correct? The values are measured to two decimal places of accuracy, but because of seasonal changes a range needs to be given rather than a single value.They are simply based on selected 100 ppmv increments, in order to show that adding 100 ppmv from a baseline of 280 ppmv has a much greater impact on temperature than adding 100 ppmv from a baseline of 880 ppmv. This is the “declining impact of added CO2″, which is often discussed.

6. Which model did you use and what sensitivity to get 0.5 C?No model. Simple arithmetic. If 2xCO2 results in 3.71 W/m^2 forcing and 1.1C warming (Myhre et al.), the change from 280 ppmv to 380 ppmv will result in:
1.1C * (ln380/280) / ln(2) = 0.5C

7. What sensitivity value did you use to get 0.2 C?same formula as above

Further, the question that I would really like answered (which is not what you where trying to do at all) is when the concentration of CO2 reaches theoretical zero, does the total warming effect also go to zero, or is there some warming (or cooling) left over due to feedbacks? Basically does the formulation being used make sense at the endpoints?

I do not have a definitive answer to this question (and doubt that anyone has), but let me try.

The “natural greenhouse effect” is estimated by theoretical physics to be around 33C.

Most of this is a result of H2O (as vapor or liquid droplets and ice crystals in clouds). I have seen estimates from 70% to 85% of the total, or around 25.0C on average.

CO2 is estimated to have caused between 12% and 20% of total, or around 5.3C on average.

Other GHGs (CH4, O3, etc.) are estimated to have caused between 7% and 10% of total, or around 2.7C on average.

But these are all rough theoretical estimates.

If they are correct, however, it would imply that if CO2 reached zero, our planet would be around 5C cooler than it was in 1750.

There is another point that should be considered when comparing SL altimetry with tide gauge records.

In addition to the fact that they measure a totally different scope (as you mention): i.e. the total oceans excluding polar and coastal regions, which cannot be captured by satellites versus selected shorelines, where humans live, there is the question regarding the accuracy of the satellite altimetry record itself.

Carl Wunsch et al. (2007) warned of this: their estimate for 1993-2004 was an average of 1.6 mm/year while IPCC reported a satellite number of 3.1 mm/year for the same period.

Systematic errors are likely to dominate most estimates of global average change: published values and error bars should be used very cautiously.

It is very doubtful that “climate science” can identify the reasons for the Little Ice Age. It certainly had nothing to do with the “CO2 control knob”.

The fact that it coincided with a period of extremely low solar activity, may simply be a coincidence.

That the recovery from the LIA coincided with increasing solar activity and the 20thC warming coincided with unusually high level of solar activity (highest in several thousand years, according to some solar studies), may also be purely coincidental.

Although I agree that “correlation does not provide evidence of causation”, I also do not believe in “coincidences”.

First of all thanks for your patience … I had assumed a number of things incorrectly, most notably what you meant by the ranges. You were simply using them to note the start and end concentrations of CO2 that was supposed to yield the warming.

A quick calculation of 1.1 * C ln(1/280)/ln(2) = -8.9
I use 1 instead of 0 because 0/280 = 0 and ln(0) is undefined and approaching minus infinity.

So I think it is fairly safe to say that the fundamental model doesn’t work well, in fact breaks down at the end point when the concentration of CO2 approaches zero. I seem to recall that disclaimer someplace that the sensitivity only works within a certain range of the concentrations, but I can’t remember where I read it now. Further I don’t think that the statement was made with any precision as to exactly what range the model is supposed to work. Lastly, I don’t have confidence that other than vague hand waving that this range is known. The more I look into this, the more I realize that uncertainty dominates.

I have also seen somewhere that the logarithmic relation fails at very low values.

I do not know how the estimates of the “natural GH impact” of CO2 were made, but if you substitute 10 ppmv for your lowest value, you get -5.3C as the cooling if essentially all CO2 were removed from the atmosphere.

Somewhere else I have seen that 200 ppmv is the lower limit to support most plant life, but I cannot see how we are in any danger of ever reaching this level.

Max
I congratulate you as well for the well reasoned responses to the NAS questions. The bomb pulse from the atmospheric testing should show how carbon recycles in the time scale. I will try to find some references.

The ocean acidification issue is really a falsehood because most areas the daily range of PH is ten times the measured changes.

Sea level rise is again something that is misleading in the report. 7 inches a century measured value we will handle easily. In

In 100 years we will have fusion, desalination and hydrogen fueled vehicles and we can invent other concerns.

Chemists, biologists and biochemists all have a slightly different view on how the symbiosis between ocean chemistry and the ocean biosphere really works. It is complex – the carbonate shift, CO2, phytoplankton, shellfish, etc. all play a role.

We see that on a diurnal basis, local ocean pH varies slightly.

We have a few spot measurements that seem to indicate that the alkalinity of sea water in some locations seems to be decreasing ever so slightly.

From these we ASS-U-ME that this is a general phenomenon over the entire ocean.

We ASS-U-ME that underwater volcanoes, sea mounts and fissures in the Earth’s crust are only contributing a very small amount of CO2 into the oceans.

We further ASS-U-ME that the increase in ocean CO2 is caused by the slightly increasing atmospheric CO2 levels, which we ASS-U-ME are caused by human fossil fuel combustion (this last assumption may be the least dicey of all).

From all this we fabricate an “anthropogenically induced ocean acidification problem”.

Although I enjoy traveling to exotic vacation spots like Bali, Cancun, etc. I’m not so sure I want the job. Politics is not my cup of tea and Pachauri is a hard act to follow.

But if I did accept such a nomination, I would first ensure that you are the lead author for WG2 and WG3, and would insist that our hostess be the lead author for all chapters of WG1 but that we also have some dissenting opinions aboard, such as lolwot and Webby – just to keep things stirred up.

Manacker, I would also decline. I would propose Richard Tol for WG2 and Richard Tol and Faustino for WG3. I’d suggest to have a WG4 regarding the international politics of climate change and how to develop rational policies that can be implemented and succeed internationally in the real world. For that role I would propose Roger Pielke Jr.

Gee Pete, ya don’t think it might have something to do with tens of millions of people and a ginormous agricultural empire on the west coast taking every bit of surface water they can get so they can green the deserts, irrigate their fields, and flush their terlets? And how that diverted doesn’t go into the ocean in the same place in the same condition it did before humans changed it all?

I have a question. Since the heat is ‘missing’ and the casual answer is that it is hiding in the oceans, that interface, is it doing something that they didn’t understand before? Why weren’t they aware of this? What kind of impact did it have on climate before the current period, and if so is it included in their analysis? Are the oceans doing something new or has this always been a feature and what regulates it if isn’t. Because if temperature were rising before and now they are steady or slightly declining, what is the primary cause of this? The math indicates a steady rise of temps with the release of co2. Why have the oceans all of a sudden started to absorb the warming? How much of the recent global warming is due to either the oceans absorbing heat or releasing it?

humans are changing Earth’s climate. – Royal Society
This should have the proviso
” by increasing the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere”
and the follow up proviso
” causing the earth to warm more than it would naturally “.
The earth is warming naturally as it comes out of the last ice age.
The cause of why we have ice ages is still not clear despite good theories and is not a concern as we will all be dead many centuries before another and ice ages are not good.
The degree of variation of warmth of the atmosphere, earth surface and sea yearly has only been measured for a short time and quite large variations can occur from year to year.
The amount of variation in temperature the last 40 years is well within the bounds of natural variation [given the large amounts that have been shown to occur in a single year like 1997.] and of no cause for concern and no predictor of future temperatures on a century scale.
As understanding of causes of temperature changes are still in their infancy all we can say is that the earth is expected to get a little warmer overall in the next century and the next millennium.

In regard to CO2, the amount of distorting the facts is incredible. Most people including the Royal Society are aware that CO2 rises have followed the temperature rises not caused them.
This is due to more carbonate substrate dissolving into the warmer sea and the water giving off more of the CO2 it now contains.
In fact in the slight warming that we have had more of the CO2 rise might be just that, a natural response, and the fingerprint? of burning carbon unimportant.
Human CO2 remaining in the atmosphere for thousands of years is also emotive rubbish. How much will remain? after a few years virtually none.
The amount remaining is important, after all each breath we take has a molecule of CO2 breathed out by Julius Caesar [fact] but I am not going to say that he is the cause of CO2 increase /Climate change.
1 molecule in every ton is not important
When the earth cools again a little in the next 5,10 50 years as it will, the CO2 levels will fall.
The earth and sea are a giant buffer system that keeps a balance and the more CO2 we produce the more the earth will absorb.

I hope and trust that the Royal Society is right
humans can change the Earth’s climate. We already do on a micro climate scale. Rivers can be diverted and lakes drained, I live in an area dependent on irrigation.The three Gorges Dam is a monument to human ingenuity. But the big,big stuff is still out of reach.
Heck you have to drop 100 Hiroshima bombs a minute just to keep the planet’s warmth steady. [thanks Gavin].
I cannot see humans doing that for even an hour with all our resources so whatever way it wants to go it is just too big [for the sun] to worry about a few gnats on the surface producing a trace of a trace gas for a micro, micro second.

“2. How do scientists know that recent climate change is largely caused by human activities?

Scientists know that recent climate change is largely caused by human activities from an understanding of basic physics, comparing observations with models, and fingerprinting the detailed patterns of climate change caused by different human and natural influences. ”

Fingerprinting is an area the “skeptics” need to learn more about. The surface warming and stratospheric cooling patterns are consistent with expected CO2 effects, and not consistent with either solar or ocean circulation changes. Held in the APS meeting also alluded to the fact that the warming pattern in the sub-polar latitudes is not the place you would expect ocean-produced warming to be. It is just the wrong pattern for that, and actually opposite.

The problem here is we already know that models are primarily driven by CO2, the pattern of warming (and cooling) doesn’t really add anything to that fact. What matters is whether obs match that expectation and at least some of the data suggests it doesn’t

i’ve also wondered about this. According to the mainstream view about two thirds of the response comes from feedbacks, largely water vapour and albedo. These feedbacks occur no matter what the source of the initial forcing. For example if warming is in part from variability in the release of energy from oceans and/or flow of energy in the oceans to the poles then these feedbacks have the possibility to look similar to CO2 feedbacks. I’ve never seen these fingerprints broken done into the forcings and feedbacks, anybody know such an analysis?

1. Volcanic fingerprints are easy to isolate especially if the eruptions are large and dated precisely.
2. ENSO fingerprints are easy as the SOI provides an irregular pattern of peaks and valleys that can be aligned with the temperature profile.
3. Same with TSI activity with its nearly cyclic pattern
4. The LOD Stadium Wave is a long-term period that is easily aligned.
5. Other orbital cycles suggested by Scafetta are also identifiable by a regression analysis. The most significant one is the barycentric solar placement which somehow interacts with the temperature along with tidal factors.

These are all skeptical arguments BTW.

Yet, even with all of these factors, more than 90% is the result of the CO2 fingerprint, which is the most obvious of all.

Thanks but I was really curious to know whether anybody had disentangled the effects of a forcing and its feedbacks. It’s not uncommon to read that feedbacks are a function of warming, irrespective of the initial forcing. Now I wouldn’t be surprised to hear that each forcing had it’s own subtly different feedback pattern but feedback as a response to warming seems like a good approximation. Given that 2/3 of the warming comes from these feedbacks, i’e. all forcings that cause warming will share the same feedbacks I’m curious to know what role these feedbacks are playing in the details of the fingerprint.

The problem is that the feedback by itselfdoes not have a pattern. Consider an audio system which amplifies sound. If the feedback actually did introduce artifacts, instead of just boosting the original signal, most people would complain.
Instead, all it does is reproduce the original signal and either by boosting it (positive feedback) or reducing it (negative feedback). There is no pattern here to detect apart from a gain factor.

So the positive feedback that the CO2 control knob is somewhat hard to isolate but since the effect is so incredibly strong in practice, it cannot be denied. And CAGW is the situation where this gain goes open-loop. You wouldn’t want that to happen to your hi-fi.

An understanding of basic physics is unfortunately missing from the models. Please tell the modelers that the latent heat of water is not a constant independent of temperature; it changes by about 1% for every 10 degrees C. Ask them how exactly they compare observations with models. To my best knowledge (rather limited; I am not a climastrologist) most IPCC models have been spectacularly wrong.

I think you are wrong WebHub. One feedback is water vapour. Warming places extra water vapour molecules into the atmosphere. These water vapour molecules are distributed through the atmosphere in a different manner to CO2 molecules and alter the flow of energy through the system in an equally different way. Therefore the water vapour feedback has its own ‘fingerprint’. Equally albedo changes the amount of reflected SW energy in certain latitudes which is a completely different mechanism to CO2. The total fingerprint from CO2 is surely made from the sum of these different components.

Maybe because albedo is so different from CO2, maybe you could explain how changes in this doesn’t have it’s own unique fingerprint in comparison the CO2?

I’m understanding the process in terms of how the particular component (Co2, water vapour or albedo) changes the flow of energy through the system, its this that gives rise to the fingerprint and each component surely has it’s own unique fingerprint.

Positive feedback example for water vapor. GHG accumulation leads to warming. Higher atmospheric temperatures allows for a greater specific humidity since warmer air holds more water. More humidity is more GHGs in the air so this leads to positive feedback warming. This is not runaway positive feedback by itself and will reach a steady state.

How can you separate a feedback from added water vapor that occurred because of warming caused by added CO2 from one that occurred because of warming attributable to some other (natural) factor?

And how can you separate a change in albedo resulting from a change in cloud cover that was attributable to added CO2 from one that occurred because of warming attributable to some other (natural) factor?

I’d go a step further in asking:

How can you be certain that the observed change in cloud cover did not occur naturally rather than simply as a feedback to some other warming signal?

Simply saying that the model agrees with the “CO2 control knob” hypothesis is not good enough, Webby (the model may be wrong because it has been programmed improperly).

And, of course, there is also the problem that the actual most recent observations were not predicted by the model, that the model is unable to explain the early 20thC warming cycle or the mid-century cycle of slight cooling.

Manacker, I know you had trouble in ChemE because you never figured out that the vapor pressure of H20 (and CO2) increases with temperature. Undeniable positive feedback. Same thing with surface albedo changes, as white (snow,ice) reflects more than dark (dirt, plants).

I sailed right through that course with Clausius and Clapeyron at my side.

Also took an elective meteorology class. Learned that things don’t always work out in the atmosphere as they do in the lab.

Good stuff – apparently you missed that course, along with the IPCC model jockeys.

But Minschwaner and Dessler found it out when they measured water vapor feedback over the tropics and found that the physically observed WV increase was less than a fourth of that predicted by my old buddies, Clausius and Clapeyron.

manacker, you are referring to the negative lapse rate feedback, which is less negative than predicted, and is likely the same reason as that for the tropical oceans not warming as fast as predicted (hot spot and all). This could be because the Arctic has warmed several times faster than expected, and is taking the burden of the global response. Just because a negative feedback isn’t living up to predictions, doesn’t make things any better for the surface.

This Report on Climate change is flawed because it forecasts a temperature increase derived from the RCP8.5 scenario, which the propaganda machine built on an IPCC report foundation insists on calling the “business-as-usual case”. This case isn´t business as usual, the scenario isn´t coherent, there is little “science” to back it up.

The so-called “BaU” case RCP8.5 is anything but “BaU”. It is a gross exaggeration of what could occur to atmospheric CO2 levels, which ignores projected population growth projections of the UN and US Census Bureau and even ignores the constraint of how much fossil fuels there are on our planet.

Max — We have established a common ground statement that the Earth’s temperature “has” increased, but the use of the phrase “is increasing” is questionable. Average Joe’s think of Models as predictors of the future, so my following question is not about climate models. Question: Starting at whatever objective starting point until 2013, is there analysis which identifies a percentage breakout of this historical increase between (1) clearly natural (sun, volcanoes, El Nino, etc.) and (2) anything else that would/could be questionable? Just two break-out percentages, known versus unknown. Unknown wouldn’t mean man-made. Thanks.

Stephen, you write ” is there analysis which identifies a percentage breakout of this historical increase ”

Let me try and answer. There is no such analysis done in a scientific way. Various people have made estimates, which are nothing more than guesses, as to what the proportions are, and some of these may have appeared in the peer reviewed literature. Bur a careful reading of these guesses merely confirms that they are simply just that, guesses.

SS, unless you understand the system that you are interrogating, it is not possible to definitely state whether something is statistically significant or not.
As I showed earlier, here is the HADCRU4 global data with the years 1976-2013 moved back to 1911 and lowered by 0.44.

Now as you can see we have a very similar line-shape for the 38 years following 1911 and the 38 years following 1976.
Now it is quite possible that some cyclic process, with a roughly 60-65 year cycle, moves heat around the oceans and gives rise to warming and cooling.
Or it could be a fluke and normal human pattern recognition of a noisy slow rising data-set.
You cannot definitively say what it all means, and whether something is different from something else, unless you understand the background processes.

Starting at whatever objective starting point until 2013, is there analysis which identifies a percentage breakout of this historical increase between (1) clearly natural (sun, volcanoes, El Nino, etc.) and (2) anything else that would/could be questionable? Just two break-out percentages, known versus unknown.

There does not appear to be an agreement on this. Our hostess here has written about the great uncertainties in trying to separate anthropogenic from natural factors causing observed past warming.

IPCC states that “most” (more than 51%?) of the warming since 1950 was caused by the increase in human GHG concentrations.

But it is silly to only look at this brief “blip” of time.

Let’s go back as far as the HadCRUT4 temperature record (1850) – this is still just a “blip”, but we do not have any meaningful global temperature records that go beyond this.

We have no CO2 measurement for 1850, but ice core data (Siegenthaler et al. 1998) suggest that the CO2 was around 287 ppmv.

Using HadCRUT4, the linear rate of warming was 0.77C over the 164 year period or 0.047C per decade.

If we ASS-U-ME that 100% of the observed warming since 1850 can be attributed to CO2 (and other anthropogenic forcing factors, such as aerosols or other GH gases, cancelled one another out), the 2xCO2 temperature response would be 1.7C
100% * 0.77 * ln (2) / ln (396 / 287)

On the same basis, if we ASS-U-ME that 75% of the observed warming since 1850 can be attributed to CO2, the 2xCO2 temperature response would be 1.2C

And if we ASS-U-ME that 50% of the observed warming since 1850 can be attributed to CO2, the 2xCO2 temperature response would be 0.8C

And if we ASS-U-ME that 25% of the observed warming since 1850 can be attributed to CO2, the 2xCO2 temperature response would be 0.4C

So that is sort of a range we could look at, based on what we ASS-U-ME.

That is all reagent waste that Manacker has typed up.
From 1880 onwards, here is the actual sensitivity based on global temperature rise, with the natural fluctuations compensated for in the CSALT model:

“Uncertainty,” Fung said, “does not challenge my certainty about the fact the planet will warm.”

I’m glad to see that quoted choice of words. Not because I sympathize with the statement, but because it merely illustrates the “lawyer’s way out” of their difficulties:-

That is, when your claims for predicting large temperature increases fail the regular statistical assessments, retreat to vehemently defending very small increases and hope that nobody notices the switch.

Will our planet most likely continue the long-term trend of slight warming we have witnessed since we have emerged from a colder and harsher period called the Little Ice Age?

Some solar scientists say “no” – because the sun has become very inactive and could well revert to a Maunder or Dalton Minimum condition.

But, leaving this possibility out of the equation, it is likely that over the long haul we will continue to see the same level of slight warming we have seen in the past, even if the next two or three decades show slight cooling.

And since Fung did not attach a time line to the warming prediction, I think it’s a safe (but meaningless) bet.

Gates, it is not present in the recorded data. The postulate that low level volcanic released SO2 causes droplet formation and drops the atmospheric transmission is completely unproven.
All the direct data shows that the period post-1998 is remarkable by the lack of aerosols.
You either believe the data or magic.

One of the primary factors is the ENSO as measured by SOI. Other smaller orbital factors such as those offered by Nicola Scafetta and Clive Best also happen to constructively interfere in their cycles to compensate the rise. These are all skeptical arguments, BTW.

There might be a slight contribution to background volcanic activity but it certainly is not on a large scale, such as a Pinatubo would cause.

“I really don’t think the pause is entirely due to volcanic activity.”
____
Nor does any scientist that I know of. It is only one factor, and perhaps in the middle of pack in terms of effect. Most likely that “pack” looks something like this:

1. Natural Variability in ocean to atmosphere heat flux (i.e. cool phase of the PDO and other related natural variability). (Maybe up to 70% of the cause?)

RG, Yup agreed on that list. One could also add the slight orbital effects that the skeptic Scafetta has suggested.http://arxiv.org/pdf/1205.5765.pdf
He has hypothesized that the barycentric center of the sun goes through cycles of about 20 years, and this induces, through gravitational forces, changes to the climate. If this was on a downward cycle, this could contribute to the pause.

But skeptics don’t always like to be reminded of what their suggestions were, because it might lead to an own goal. Watts doesn’t like Scafetta anymore, probably for this reason and secondarily, as an excuse, because Scafetta doesn’t release his code. Yet the barycentric center of the sun is easy to get. Watts must be lazy.

From the article:
U.N. Urges Eating Insects; 8 Popular Bugs to Try
From beetles to stinkbugs, people in dozens of countries eat insects.
Fried locust on display before being eaten.

Insects, like these fried locusts on display in a market, are a popular snack in a number of countries.
…
Ants are sweet, nutty little insects, aren’t they?

I’m not talking about their personalities, but how they taste. Stinkbugs have an apple flavor, and red agave worms are spicy. A bite of tree worm apparently brings pork rinds to mind.

This information will come in handy for those of us following the latest recommendation from the United Nations: Consume more insects.
…
1. Beetles
…
2. Butterflies and Moths
…
3. Bees and Wasps
…
4. Ants
…
5. Grasshoppers, Crickets, and Locusts
…
6. Flies and Mosquitoes
…
7. Water Boatmen and Backswimmers
…
8. Stinkbugs
…

jim2,
Scroll down the comments at that NG link and find Cephas Peter advocating:-
“The UN is persuading people to eat (insects or whatever). How about persuading them NOT to eat anything at all? I am talking about the phenomenon called breatharianism: people spending years without eating or drinking?”

Not much I can say to that really, but I can’t see it catching on.

Mind you, in Skardu, Pakistan I once met an Austrian planning to walk/ride to China via the Hindu Kush and some more off-beat routes. He said he could use this diet as his sustenance through the desserts, but was of the opinion that he couldn’t expect his horse to manage without food. I sometimes wonder what became of his horse.

Noted.
I have to wonder why when an organization promulgates ideas like this one, promotes the global warming meme on nothing more than on a putative correlation; why do we give people like this money?

United nay-shuns! Makes me think
of the movie, ‘Name of the Rose,’
the rustling of cardinals’ silk
in the corridors of power,
the far-flung authority
and especially indulgences
penned by industrious scribes,
inside the stone-walled,
(glass-walled) hive,
while on the slopes outside,
peasants scrabble
fer scraps from
the priests’ table, say,
‘Let – them – eat – crickets.’
Er, would yer mind passing the
caviar?

“The capability of climate models has improved steadily since the 1960s. Using physics-based equations, the models can be tested and are successful in simulating a broad range of weather and climate variations, for example from individual storms, jet stream meanders, El Niño events, and the climate of the last century. Their projections of the most prominent features of the long-term human-induced climate change signal have remained robust, as generations of increasingly complex models yield richer details of the change. They are also used to perform experiments to isolate specific causes of climate change and to explore the consequences of different scenarios of future greenhouse gas emissions and other influences on climate. ”

They kind of forget to say that almost all of the models have way-overpredicted the earth’s temperature to date. They may use “physics-based equations”, but they are fundamentally wrong. Basing policy on their predictions makes no sense at all.

Exactly! Will Rogers said, When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging. Recognizing the problems of, “systematic error that are larger than the observed anomalies… [and] burying the bad news about model performance,” statistics Professor Leonard Smith (London School of Economics) is smart to ask, “Can (we) climate modelers stop digging?” Smith sees, “the demonstrated value of earth/climate forecasts,” as follows: (1) “significant” in the “medium-range,” of about two weeks or less; (2) of value seasonally for, “some months and regions;” and (3), not of much value at all for global or regional purposes when looking decades into the future.

“The special path on energy cost taxpayers €22 billion last year alone—and that figure doesn’t include residual costs to the economy.”

Having argued so strenuously that green policies are great- green policy would help the environment and not endanger the economy- politicians are in a bind and don’t know how to tell the population the truth.

“Much like Obamacare in the United States, the governing coalition has staked too much on the Energiewende to admit its failure so openly. Unlike Obamacare, however, the Energiewende has been embraced by both of Germany’s main political parties and remains wildly popular with the electorate. A new poll published by Spiegel Online, for instance, shows that 83 percent of Germans want Merkel to advocate even more ambitious, binding EU emissions reductions targets.”

The Royal Society” What role has the Sun played in climate change in recent decades?”

The Royal Society answer:
Over an 11 year spot cycle, “the Sun’s energy output varies by roughly 0.1%” There aren’t “pronounced long-term changes in the Sun’s output over the past century.” Therefore, the Sun’s variations have played very little role in the climate changes observed in recent decades.”
——————–
My complaint with this is that pronounced long-term changes aren’t necessary to result in a pronounced effect. The reason is that a 2X multiplier is necessary to convert a sub-20yr fast transient effect into a 100 yr ECS effect. So, only a 0.05% century scale solar variation reduces a 2XCO2 ECS of 2.7 °C. to 1.9 °C (provided phases match up as they apparently do).

OTOH, Santer’s new volcanism discovery restores the ECS to ~3C.

Note: I have used 2XCO2 as a proxy for all anthro climate impacts as was done by BEST.

…and yet, the Old Farmers Almanac has been far more accurate in its prediction of global cooling… based on solar activity.

What does all this mean?

► Some theorists believe that there is a correlation between Earth’s temperatures and both the level of solar activity and the length of the solar cycle. The low solar activity levels and the delayed start to the solar cycle indicate that we’re in a cooling phase. It’s possible that the delayed start means a delayed end.

► It is expected that Solar Cycle 24 and Solar Cycle 25 will be relatively quiet-to-average cycles, leading to a cooling pattern over the next few decades.

► Temperatures have been colder than it would have been otherwise. Sunspots are simlar to a bathtub of lukewarm water; if you trickle in cold or hot water, it may take a while to notice the difference. If this cooling phase on Earth is offset by any warming caused by increasing greenhouse gases, they also raise the question of whether an eventual warming cycle could lead to more rapid warming on Earth than expected.

” Therefore, the Sun’s variations have played very little role in the climate changes observed in recent decades.”

So the Royal Society maintains that the TSI is the only solar variable that impacts the Earth’s climate?

And that variations in sunspot activity, spectral distribution of the TSI, amplitude and polarization of the solar magnetic field, coronal mass ejections, the variations in the solar wind, et al have NO effect on the climate and can be safely ignored for the purposes of Climate Modeling?

But that excess solar energy burrowing its way into the ocean’s depths, below our capability to measure it, raising the temperature by a few hundredths of a degree (estimated), represents an unmistakeable signature of ACO2 driven planetary warming and poses an existential threat that MUST be addressed by stringent control of ACO2 through taxation and regulation?

Changes in direct solar irradiance alone are unlikely to cause major warming or cooling, as most everyone would agree.

If 2xCO2 results in 3.71 W/m^2 forcing (Myhre et al.), then it would take an estimated 1.1% change in incoming solar radiation (341 W/m^2) to equal a doubling of CO2. (That’s a lot.)

The theoretical 2:1 (or even higher) multiplier to account for all sorts of computer-generated feedbacks would apply to either forcing, of course.

More important is the question: how much of the incoming radiation is reflected out to space by clouds and never reaches our climate system?

Here we see that a 5% change in cloud cover has roughly the same forcing impact as a doubling of CO2.

IPCC ASS-U-MEs that clouds only change as a feedback to warming or cooling caused by something else, but there is no sound empirical basis for this.

Cloud cover seems to have varied considerably (decreasing 1980-2000, increasing after 2000, according to Pallé et al.), and some have shown a correlation with ENSO or PDO shifts, which appear to by cyclical.

A piece of this could very well be the large quantities of CO2 added to the atmosphere, as you surmise.

But this begs the questions: Why does CO2 correlate more poorly with temperature than solar activity on a multi-decadal basis over most of the record? And why does CO2 not correlate with temperature in the most recent pause?

And it raises the question: what about cyclical changes (in cloud cover, for example) – it appears that these are NOT caused by added CO2, but could they have been caused by natural cycles which may have been forced by changing solar activity?

‘The pile-like increase of water vapour up to 19 km seen by the high-resolution hygrometer during the season of maximum temperature of the tropopause, suggests that the above hydration mechanism may contribute to the summer maximum moisture in the lower stratosphere. If this interpretation is correct, hydration by ice geysers across the tropopause might be an important contributor to the stratospheric water vapour budget.’ http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/9/2275/2009/acp-9-2275-2009.pdf

Rather than volcanoes – the clear sky SW data shows a decrease in reflected SW early in the century with not much change since. This might be a change in ice geysers associated with changing convection patterns in the turn of the century climate shift.

In fact, from Mann’s perspective, the report is too conservative. For example, he said, it fails to acknowledge that climate models often underestimate the rate of change. “This is clearly true with respect to Arctic sea ice, where the precipitous decline seen in the observations over the past several decades is way beyond where the models generally conclude we should be,” he said.

The Arctic Sea Ice has declined the same as it did in every warm period in the past eleven thousand years. The climate models do warming periods correctly. Of course actual data does not follow climate models because climate models do not get natural cycles right. Mother nature does get natural cycles right and does what happened in the past warmings and not what these new flawed models tell her to do.

“The simple fact is that, since the beginning of this century, the average global temperature has flatlined; indeed, over the past 18 months it has fallen back, and according to the satellite measurements of temperature, it is now basically back at the level it was in 1979, when such measurements started to be taken.” ~Peter Lilley

Valid physics tells us there is no warming caused by water vapor or any other greenhouse gas. A planet’s surface may be partly warmed by direct solar radiation, but even that is not found to be necessary on some other planets. Nor is any radiation from a colder atmosphere able to raise the temperature of a surface because that would be a process in which entropy had decreased. Radiation from the atmosphere plays a part in slowing surface cooling, but what does most of the slowing are nitrogen and oxygen molecules which slow conduction from the surface.

But none of these processes are what plays the main role in setting and controlling surface temperatures. The amount of solar radiation absorbed by the atmosphere and the thermal gradient that forms autonomously in a gravitational field according to the laws of physics are the main factors determining these temperatures. This is very obvious on other planets, but as we stand in the nice warm sunshine on Earth we get somewhat confused as to what’s warming what. Just remember that there is absolutely no evidence in temperature records that the greenhouse gas water vapor increases mean surface temperatures. That fact is a bit of a bother for those who try to imagine the temperature trends show sensitivity to carbon dioxide, when in fact they are mostly just showing the main 1,000 year and 60 year natural cycles regulated by the planets.

Anyone with a knowledge of physics and some simple facts can see your post is nonsense. The average energy flux arriving from the sun at the top of the atmosphere is 360W/M^2. The temperature of the surface will rise to a point where equilibrium between incoming and outgoing radiation is established. Without the greenhouse gases it is easy to use the Stefan Boltzmann equation to show that this temperature is 255C, 33C colder than the average temperature of the earth’s surface.

The surface temperature of Venus is 460C, as hot as melting lead, because it has a dense atmosphere of CO2, which prevents the IR from the surface exiting the planet.http://www.space.com/18527-venus-atmosphere.html
You are getting your information from crackpot web sites.

eadler2, you’re conflating the surface and the top of the atmosphere. Furthermore it’s 340 W/m2, and ~100 W/m2 is reflected by the atmosphere/clouds and the surface. A part is absorbed by the atmosphere (~80 W/m2), so only ~160 W/m2 is absorbed by the surface in average.

eadler2 | March 4, 2014 at 9:54 am said: ”Anyone with a knowledge of physics and some simple facts can see”

ealder, if YOU know anything about physics – you would have known that: ”earth does not radiate heat to high up (what the greenhouse con job say)- instead the horizontal winds cool the surface – yes winds, winds made from oxygen & nitrogen warmed are carrieng the heat up – earth cannot ”radiate high up, because O2&N2 are perfect insulators. So I know the common / regular crap you know, but you should learn what I know

then ”VERTICAL WINDS” cool the planet – vertical winds that the hang-glider people use, same as hot air in a hot air balloon is so strong, can lift a ton luggage.

@Stefanthedenier
“ealder, if YOU know anything about physics – you would have known that: ”earth does not radiate heat to high up (what the greenhouse con job say)- instead the horizontal winds cool the surface – yes winds, winds made from oxygen & nitrogen warmed are carrieng the heat up – earth cannot ”radiate high up, because O2&N2 are perfect insulators. So I know the common / regular crap you know, but you should learn what I know.”

I have a PhD in physics and you are a crackpot who gets his information from crackpots.

Some of the heat is removed from the earth’s surface by convection and winds, but that doesn’t negate the fact that the all bodies radiate energy according to the Stefan Boltzmann equation. You are wrong about O2 and N2 being prefect insulators. IR radiation travels right through these gases.

Pyrolysis is a wasted step. Just gather up bio-waste, (maybe) wrap it in plastic, tie stones to it, and drop it in an anoxic ocean trench.

You might want to try running the numbers for the amount of carbon sequestration that would result from a 50% implementation of this policy WRT the world’s current agricultural production.

Since you’re a proponent of “carbon taxes”, why not allow anybody who purchases offsets via such processes to not have to pay those taxes? This could produce an economic incentive for developing the technology, and the market in it. Later, if it’s found necessary for the “planetary health”, the offsets required could be some amount larger than 100% of carbon burned. Thus, with relatively easy-to-meet impositions resulting in relatively small increases in energy prices, the capacity could be built for large-scale sequestration, while the science progresses to determine whether it’s necessary.

Nuclear wastes won’t take up much room, even with massive containment vessels. And for them, you really need trenches with maximum deposition, which may not be the best ones for bio-waste requiring an anoxic environment. Either way, there’s lots of room relative to the quantities involved.

“Direct satellite measurements since the late 1970s show no net increase in the Sun’s output,”

I don’t buy that:

“Sea ice in the partly-enclosed Arctic Ocean seems to be responding directly to warming,”

I don’t buy that either, UAH shows the Arctic Ocean cooling up to early 1995. The only reason it warmed so much following that, was an increase in negative AO/NAO episodes. Forced warming does not make the AO/NAO go increasingly negative.

I will seriously consider the “NAS/RS Report on Climate Change” when the US National Academy of Sciences and the UK Royal Society accept my invitation (above) to publicly address nine pages of precise experimental data that disagree with their standard (consensus) model of Earth’s heat source – The Sun

With the exception of ~1940 and a dip in the 1960s, the temperature of the earth has not fallen since 1910. This is the loopiest cyclic behavior ever seen. Almost a complete absence of down. For the 1st half of the cycle, we cycle UP. For the 2nd half of the cycle, we cycle up.

30 years of UP plus 30 years of up equals 60 years of UPup. We’re in a 60-year UPup cycle.

For attention of TonyB
Hi Tony
I hope all is well, busy with work on your book?
As suggested last summer, this CET winter indeed ended at 6.1C, well above (by 1.4C) the previous 20 year average of 4.7Chttp://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-dMm.htm
and 2.3C above the 2013 winter (3.8C).
I wonder how does that compare with the MetOffice’s prediction from the last summer?

CET is a bit of a problem for the 97%ists. I have tackled Gavin Schmidt and Jan Perlwitz, both from GISS Nasa, but they run away. The reason is, I think that the CET most clearly contradicts the AGW as you can see here:http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/MidSummer-MidWinter.htm
Historically summers have not shown any warming for 350 years, while all the warming has been in the winter months. The reason for this is that the summer is mostly controlled by insolation and the winter by the nearby Atlantic’s Gulf stream and Icelandic Low (atmospheric pressure) the regulator of the zonal / meridional jet stream flow across the N. Atlantic.

The more interesting question is the use of the CET record as a proxy for net accumulation of energy in the global climate system. I’ve seen no data to support the notion that the tropospheric surface record in central England is any sort of descent proxy for this net global energy accumulation, the vast majority of which is in the oceans, with a large part of that being in the IPWP.

‘Comparisons of global steric height trends based on different gridded fields of Argo in situ measurements show a range of 0–1mmyr−1 which can be lead back to data handling and climatology uncertainties. Our results show that GOIs derived from the Argo measurements are ideally suitable to
monitor the state of the global ocean, especially after November 2007, i.e. when Argo sampling was 100% complete. They also show that there is significant interannual global variability at global scale, especially for global OFC. Before the end of 2007, error bars are too large to deliver robust short-term trends of GOIs and thus an interpretation in terms of long-term climate signals are still questionable, especially since uncertainties due to interannual fluctuations are not included in our error estimation.’ http://www.ocean-sci-discuss.net/8/999/2011/osd-8-999-2011.pdf

Frankly – unless there is an idea of what is driving short term OHC variability – and where that might go – nothing can be reasonably said. Without the perspective that only satellite radiant flux data can give it is all just gibberish from climate crazies.

Measure the wave height on a choppy body of water in a single spot. The wave height will bob up and down in a fluctuating pattern. Now measure the wave height of the entire lake — this will more nearly average to zero.

HadCET is that single bobber. If you want to believe in RLH, that CET represents the entire world, be my guest.

@WHUT to RLH: “Let me give an analogy on using CET instead of a global average.

Measure the wave height on a choppy body of water in a single spot. The wave height will bob up and down in a fluctuating pattern. Now measure the wave height of the entire lake — this will more nearly average to zero.

HadCET is that single bobber. If you want to believe in RLH, that CET represents the entire world, be my guest.”

Reply: OTOH if your boat is moored where the water is choppy, the wave height of the entire lake is totally irrelevant to you; you are more interested in the wave height where your boat is. Similarly, the overall temperature of the Earth has zero meaning for people who live at particular locations. They are more interested in what their local weather station (or group of weather stations) is telling them.

BREAKING NEWSPROOF THAT CIMATE-CHANGE SKEPTICISM
HAS NO RATIONAL SCIENTIFIC BASIS WHATSOEVER,
IN MICROSCOPIC PHYSICS,
IN MACROSCOPIC THERMODYNAMICS,
OR IN OBSERVATIONAL ANALYSIS

Judith Curry admirably advocates “Make clear what is well established, where consensus is growing, and where there is still uncertainty.”

Let’s put Judith Curry’s program into effect, by subjecting to statistical test the null hypothesis “There is presently no pause in the warming of global surface temperature anomalies.”

Introduction If we confidently assume the null hypothesis “there is no pause”, then there is a greater-than-95% probability, that the present 17-year warming trend will NOT be in the bottom-5% of 17-year warming trends.

Conversely If the present 17-year warming *IS* in the bottom-5% of 17-year warming trends, then we have ample statistical grounds to reject the null hypothesis “there is no pause”.

Let’s follow Judith Curry’s advice, and test for ourselves this null hypothesis. That will be FUN, eh Climate Etc lassies and laddies?

Fortunately, even the simple programming environments (MicroSoft “Excel” for example) are entirely adequate for i>Climate Etc citizen-coders to verify for themselves that for *ALL* rational statistical tests, the hypothesis “There is no pause” is “ACCEPTED”!

• state a null hypothesis, and
• specify a statistical test, and
• specify a threshold P_value, and
• justify that hypothesis (as simple as possible!) and that statistical test (as stringent as feasible) and the threshold P_value (P≤0.05 and P≤0.99 both are traditional), and finally
• state the P_value observed, and the conclusion regarding significance.

But as Climate Etc readers appreciate — and the general public increasingly appreciates too — these basic scientific elements are *NEVER* provided by the denialist shills and ideological pundits who shelter in enclaves of irrationality like WUWT / Heartland / National Review / PJMedia / Competitive Enterprise Institute / RedState / FreedomWorks, etc.

Why do denialist enclaves persistent in the embrace of ignorance? … the world ponders!

Fan: Why can’t you simply find a standard time series analysis tool to do this task with proven statistical significance tests rather than putting together this home grown technique. I do not buy your approach at all and re-iterating the notion of the null hypothesis does not increase the robustness of your statistics.

Bernie1815,
The issue is that the global temperature time series is not a stochastic process. It has so many deterministic factors to make your head spin. Just about every one of the peaks and valleys, as well as the overall trend can be attributable to a known forcing agent.
Only the residual of the data against a deterministic mean-value model such as CSALT has a truly random component.
Check out the upper-left-corner, that’s the correlation coefficient.

Everyone that comes across that chart claims that it is an exercise in overfitting.

I understand that, but none of that remotely justifies your approach. Cite a supporting paper that utilizes your approach or stop blowing smoke. The issue of whether a current trend is the same or different from previous trends strikes me as a common question in time series analysis. You started the debate it is up to you to legitimate your approach.

In the EM spectrum, the variance is quite low. There are other energy transfers from the sun to the earth. See Purdues work on radioactive decay, and radioactive decay is a significant proportion of earths internal heat generation. There are other supporting research too.

Also there is a transfer of energy into the poles (evidenced by auroras, blackout in Quebec, etc. with variations in earths magnetic field, comes variations in birefringement of light passing through ice crystals. This could affect cloud formation (or the opposite). there is more research to do there, but the potential is massive, and could directly affect the greenhouse process.

I think we have, and I think it is birefringement. that is the property of ice, that “skews” one half of light as it passes through magnetized ice crystals (as well as other mediums). The “Cotton-Mouton” effect.

if light is scattered more, or less as it passes through ice crystals, depending on the level of magnetism, it would seem to me it would vary the amount of light that passes through it, versus getting turned around. To have even a portion of the greenhouse potential of ice crystals in the atmosphere vary based on magnetism, which in turn varies based on solar magnetism, scaled up, to the volume of ice crystals in the atmosphere should amount to enough, for it to need to be quantified to determine if it needs to be further considered. like opening and closing blinds, prehaps (not to the same degree). AND it could more strongly link the sun to the earth. atmospheric water cycles on average 40 times a year. The potential for variance is very high. If so, then TSI becomes more of a potential factor than the .01 variation attributed to it. I don’t say it IS the answer. I say until the impact is understood, how can we begin to pretend we have got the right answer regarding climate working and climate prediction.

And I will also postulate, that radioactive decay variability based on different solar activity is another link that has yet to be investigated as to it’s impact on climate. If 45% (best guess) of the earths internal heat is from radioactive decay and the sun is varying it even the slightest, the impact is massive and needs to be assessed, quantified, documented. at least to the point of proving it’s irrelevance if it is. with 254 out of 288 degrees coming from inside the earth, even slight variations would be large. for them to be directly sun linked could be what renders the greenhouse effect statistically irrelevant.

the mass of solid earth, to the mass of the atmosphere is a ratio of 1,200,000 to 1

Without potential factors such as varying radioactive decay rates and varying birefringement based on magnetic strength being quantified, it could create a situation where we make tons of observations and predictions and analysis of all the other factors, and have the predictions turn out to be insubstantial. we might even predict global warming, accidentally, and then get stuck with a 30-40 embarrassing cold period because we didn’t understand all the forcings that were in play.

Radioactive decay has always thought to be constant (per isotope). When there have been variations noted, they were attributed to gravity (and maybe relativity). But that only adds to the positive evidence that they CAN vary. It wasn’t until 2009 that we got confirmation that it can happen standing still and in the same place. And the variance was first noted AT NIGHT, which means the “mechanism” from the sun which is varying radioactive decay is traveling THROUGH the earth to do it. The research team from Stanford and Purdue universities said…

A surprise
Going back to take another look at the decay data from the Brookhaven lab, the researchers found a recurring pattern of 33 days. It was a bit of a surprise, given that most solar observations show a pattern of about 28 days – the rotation rate of the surface of the sun.
The explanation? The core of the sun – where nuclear reactions produce neutrinos – apparently spins more slowly than the surface we see. “It may seem counter-intuitive, but it looks as if the core rotates more slowly than the rest of the sun,” Sturrock said.
All of the evidence points toward a conclusion that the sun is “communicating” with radioactive isotopes on Earth, said Fischbach.
But there’s one rather large question left unanswered. No one knows how neutrinos could interact with radioactive materials to change their rate of decay.
“It doesn’t make sense according to conventional ideas,” Fischbach said. Jenkins whimsically added, “What we’re suggesting is that something that doesn’t really interact with anything is changing something that can’t be changed.”
“It’s an effect that no one yet understands,” agreed Sturrock. “Theorists are starting to say, ‘What’s going on?’ But that’s what the evidence points to. It’s a challenge for the physicists and a challenge for the solar people too.”
If the mystery particle is not a neutrino, “It would have to be something we don’t know about, an unknown particle that is also emitted by the sun and has this effect, and that would be even more remarkable,” Sturrock said.

Further with regard to radioactive decay, below is part of an article published in 2010. And it notes that there was a response to solar flares (I’m thinking it was probably a CME that hit earth. I have read that 1 out of 19 do, which is a statistical improbability in a sphere, unless the earth being the magnet that it is,is part of the mechanism that causes them (I believe we know the planets are a factor, and could help explain WHY there is an 11.5 year solar cycle). But the other main thing to note, is that it can provide some justification for CME’s causing temperature fluctuations where CME’s have NOT been considered as a climate forcing, to date, to the best of my knowledge.

Stanford Purdue reports: This adds to evidence of swings in decay rates in response to solar activity and the distance between the Earth and the sun that Purdue researchers Ephraim Fischbach, a professor of physics, and Jere Jenkins, a nuclear engineer, have been gathering for the last four years. The Purdue team previously reported observing a drop in the rate of decay that began a day and half before and peaked during the December 2006 solar flare and an annual fluctuation that appeared to be based on the Earth’s orbit of, and changing distance from, the sun, Jenkins said.

With that said, I will point out that despite CME’s NOT being believed to alter earths temperature (despite them transferring LARGE amounts of energy, as evidenced by auroras, and disruption of electrical systems.), they sure seem to by my reckoning. There have been several occasions where I live, that a significant temperature increase has followed a CME. We had temperatures in March of 2012 that were about 30 degrees celsius above normal for that time of the year. A CME preceded a large temperature swing just after Jan 7th of this year. The news talks about polar vortexes and such. Well maybe magnetism helps determine where they go, whether they get sucked more north or not. So I don’t really know how or why, but by limited observation it seems to me likely that CME’s DO modify our climate, more than they are currently given credit for. At least as determined by Stanford-Purdue, in the varying of radioactive decay. But I believe likely in other ways too, because I don’t believe there is any way radioactive decay could cause such large variations.

I don’t pretend to be able to quantify the actual effects. But I see a very large potential. Much larger than that which is observed by ACO2, because of the quantity of material involved.

The bottom line is, I just see tooo many opportunities for climate modifications that are not being quantified/considered, in any climate model I can find.

Neither birefringement (not just it’s variabiliity), nor the variability of radioactive decay are even mentioned in the 2013 IPCC full report, nor in the Royal Society/APS paper we are discussing. Nor anywhere as related to climate despite what seems obvious to me, a large opportunity for being related.

And we DO have a bunch of climate models that just do not cut it, as far as I can tell.

Not to overdo the subject, but to try to be complete and comprehesive, radioactive decay is a large part of our analysis of past climates through both ice core samples, and in coral analysis (coral might be wrong, but you know what I mean). And if it is a variable, extrapolations of temperature based on quantities of decayed material, becomes less sure, more open to other factors.

If magnetism is found to be part of the “guide” that changes “where” the focus of radioactive decay variability occurs, if it is not omnipresent, then the movement of the magnetic poles becomes another HUGE factor in ice core analysis and radioactive decay based measurement. the magnetic north pole moved 1100 kilometres in the 20th century alone. The potential for that type of movement to royally screw up analysis of each of the “straight down drillings” is large. Especially when you consider that we use the “shape” of the data we find, to “synchronize” the different sites. When in reality, it is possible, that the sites findings are offset, and that synchronization based on lining up cold and warm periods is not justifiable.

There are “loose” ends to some of this conjecture.

There are 4 types of radioactive decay. Not all types are affected the same way. At least one of the two most important ones in terms of internal heat generation is.

Problem with detecting variations in radioactive decay stem from accuracy of time keeping. If your measuring the decay of an isotope, using a clock that uses that isotope, your clock can’t help you very much.

The fact that we keep finding “better” atomic clocks, does beg the question, why was the one before it, less accurate, unless it was because there was variation in it’s decay rate??

And the fact that we feel the need to “environmentally” protect our most relied upon atomic clocks speaks volumes to the possibility that even they, can vary based on something.

(note, atomic clocks work on crystal vibrations, but the vibrations are based on a beam of particles sent from decaying material (cesium, most commonly).

So I see a TON of opportunity for interralationships, that could have gone unnoticed, because we don’t have any ability to assess the accuracy of a clock, until we build a better one.

I think it all ties together.

Hard to get people to notice. So have to stick to simpler, less “contrived” hypothesis, to get people to even bother reading.

SUN VARIES EARTHS RADIOACTIVE DECAY, AND MAGNETISM, BOTH OF WHICH HAVE EFFECTS THAT HAVE NOT BEEN CONSIDERED, RESEARCHED FOR IMPACT ON CLIMATE. BOTH OF WHICH HAVE TONS OF SUPPORTING EVIDENCE.

I will put out there, that the collection of energy from the local interstellar medium is the most likely cause of the fluctuations in the overall solar activity. NOT the 11.5 year cycle, the grand minimums, and the opposite end of that.

voyager 1, last year, left our heliopause (19,000,000,000 magnetic bubble around the sun). The medium outside is 40 times denser than inside. (like our solar wind, times 40). And is magnetically charged several times stronger than was expected. That gives us a sun, with a bubble 38,000,000,000 kilometres across, which is flying through a medium at a relative velocity of 26 kilometres per second, and either pushing out of the way, or absorbing, at least 39/40ths of what it comes across outside. That is around 1 x 10^30 cubic kilometers of “pushed aside or absorbed” material per year.

I will suggest that variations in the density of this material are your “primal cause” And since the material has been found to have “shifting currents”, it will likely also be found to have “waves”. If there were to be “something” making the sun’s strength go up and down (minimums and maximums, NOT the 11.5 year cycle), I think it will likely be “waves” in this medium. From that, the bad news is waves have patterns, and the one we are seeing, indicate a repeat of the cold spell from the early 1800’s, and I live in Canada and don’t like REALLY cold winters. The good news is, that if it is driven by “waves” in the density of the interstellar medium, we might have come out of one pattern into a new one, and NOT need to expect 50 years of progressively colder whether. Unfortunately, I vote for the probability there are waves, and therefor guess we are going into a semi-severe cooling period, and that makes me want to move to a warmer climate.

But I’ll wait a couple of more years for evidence to amount, and our analysis to get more correct, more accurate, before I actually sell my house.

either way, it sure is looking to me like “cooling period coming” (came)??

I sometimes think of it as a fry pan, there is a lot of heat coming from underneath (254 kelvin), and then the heat coming from the sun as a hair dryer blowing into it. if you put a lid on, the temperature goes up. but CO2 and other greenhouse gases arent really a lid, cause there is room for expansion, so they are more like mesh splatter screens. they will absorb some heat and trap some heat.

then I consider H2O compared to CO2 to be a splatter guard made with much thicker wires, and there are many more of them, maybe to the extent that CO2 isn’t doing anything (cause we know pound for pound H2O is much more effective, and we know there are way more pounds worth of H2O).

Then toss in the fact that the sun is likely playing with the dial for the burner, AND changing the heat setting on the blow drier, AND the atmosphere can absorb heat, expand, and in doing so dissipate the effect of the heating up (it turns to kinetic energy), because we do not live in a green house, and air pressure matters a lot to perceived temperature (bottom of Everest can be +30, while the top is -30).

AND from the hockey stick, I cannot accept the graph as shown, because we KNOW there is a schedule, and CO2 CANNOT be on a schedule, so the graph HAS to be missing a third line (at least). Something that can be on a schedule (orbital variations – someone shaking the frypan a little), but some of the schedules are smaller and have to do with orientation of the globe, during periods of similar orbits, so that can’t be the whole answer to schedule,

therefor which way we point to the sun makes a difference too. Albedo? probably, percentage of land vs ocean. (are you aiming the blow dryer at the eggs, or the bacon).

then have to dig into the mechanics of that. oceans absorb more radiation that land? I thought they reflected more. clouds they collect more. How to explain more clouds, more water does, AND birefringement variations sounds like a good one too, when more ocean facing the sun means higher temperature.

albedo related to radioactive decay another possibility. maybe neutrinos don’t go through water as much, or maybe the oceans in the south make a giant contact lense, focussing them even more??), and the variations in radioactive decay are small. but there is SO much material to work with.

but without the analogy, I keep in mind charge transfer, and how it manifests (auroras, for sure, lightning, perhaps, 3,000,000,000 hits per year. more around the belt than in northern areas. sounds like energy output from the sun). in at the top and bottom, out around the middle. and the comparison scales up. The milky way has gigantic energy clouds above and below it. The sun does, the earth does. and they all spit it out around the middle (our really warm equator)

One difference with the earth is the medium is much less dense, AND we are “hit” from the side of our magnetic field, not flying head on like the sun is.

IBEX (space probe) paints a good picture of “energy related to interstellar wind, and it makes “sense”.

All these parts build a “construct” that is more “compelling” makes more sense, work in numbers much, much, larger than the GWP of CO2.

So I personally see no evidence in the hockey stick graph, because when you can explain the scheduled fluctuations with a third line, CO2 becomes not the cause of the large fluctuations, not the cause of self feeding temperature “spirals”.

I can’t imagine anyone believes a decrease in carbon is what causes the decrease in temperature.

So what is left is the potential for a slight warming without fear of runaway temperature spiral.

toss in spectrum overlap undermining it’s effectiveness anyways.

Then knowing our temperature is flung up and down by other causes, that are larger and cause the larger fluctuations, CO2, at least in my mind doesn’t have much opportunity to be the rogue we believe it is. Personally (it’s -18 outside my house) a little warming would be appreciated to mitigate the negative impact of our currently and likely to be so for a while, VERY quiet sun.

I have enough experience with statistics for quality control, to “see” the difference between processes that have natural random variations and processes that are out of “control” (having written some graphing programs in my past, and talking to guys on assembly lines that can look at them, and know which screw they gotta go adjust, or when it means a roller is worn and needs replacing).

The hockey stick has NEVER impressed me, because it HAS to have at least one other line on it, and I suggest there are many. Without them on that graph, I CANNOT (in my mind) determine CO2’s part in the grand scheme of things. I think we forged ahead with good intent, falsely, prematurely, and with blinders on to the other realities that exist in the situation and made CO2 a villian because we associate it with so many bad things (health issues in miners, smoking, blackness, smog, death). So we easily believe it to continue to be a villain forgetting it makes bigger plants, and plants are the bottom of the food chain.

(side note…the whole ocean level thing. I don’t buy, either. continents “float” the deepest place in the ocean is the deepest place because it is the heaviest crust, more water, weighs down where water already weighs down. When there was a mile of ice over north america, the big disk of rock under the great lakes sank, as the ice went away again, it bounced back, creating niagara falls, and the niagara escarpment. sounds to me like water finds the heaviest places and stays there. melting ice doesnt raise the level of water in a glass. although melted cap water, would get drawn to the equator, if it wasn’t offset by more absorption into the atmosphere if the atmosphere is warmer.).

I have lived through global concerns about acid rain, global cooling, global warming, zebra mussel infestation, and I don’t remember ANY parades when those issues stopped being issues, which means I don’t believe we believe we solved them. there were just other unfounded fears. Y2K, 2012, how many will we invent cause we like a good hollywood scare.

(with all that said, I am a nature lover, believe in green, and trees, and life. just not unfounded fears, or falsely presented statistics, or hollywood scare movies being treated as potentially real.)

Oooops, I do go on sometimes. sorry. I get frustrated at what I see of the issue. short term observations that forget that 1 mile of ice covered the land toronto is built on 10,000 years ago. And will again sometime in the next 100,000 years. And we worry about global warming. I just get FRAZZLED!!!!

I don’t think everything I relate together necessarily has legs, but I think enough of it does.

I read and enjoyed this post too. I was first impressed when you quoted the Purdue findings that the rates of radioactive decay are influenced by the Sun’s core. Nine pages of precise experimental measurements (pages 19-27 of my biography) indicate the Sun’s core is a pulsar:

got your second note, Omanuel. I will look through your paper on the workings of the sun (and thank you). If there’s complicated math equations, don’t hope for comment or validation from me. but if I manage to understand what I read, I’ll provide feedback. I get lost big time when I hit complicated math. I have better luck understanding what I can “see” so I very often refer to google images to help me understand things, not google web. It is much faster (for me).

(at least as we currently understand the difference between internal and sun sourced heat)

(the disclaimer because if the sun varies radioactive decay, it must have a larger impact than just the variance, so either is partially or fully driving it, or partially limiting it (my guess at least partially driving it.)

I don’t know Mathematica, but it looks to me that your universe of trends includes positive, negatives and zero. Beyond that I do not see how your hypothesis is meaningful. A pause simply means “no trend”. Please explain where I am going wrong.

Bernie1815, the null hypothesis “there is no pause” predicts that there’s nothing statistically unusual about the present-decade trend in surface temperatures, relative to previous decades in the NOAA data record of surface temperatures.

As Climate Etc citizen-sciences are empowered to affirm for themselves, by all rational statistical tests, the null hypothesis “There is no pause” is ACCEPTED.

So let’s hear some denialistic “spinning” and “quibbling” and “abusing” and “conspiracy-theorizing”! Alternatively, committed denialists can always turn to WUWT (and similar house-organs of denialism), eh Climate Etc readers?

A Fan
I still do not get what your exercise gives you. The notion of pause is equivalent to saying that the slope of the trend line for the preceding 17-year period is close to zero. Do you agree?
Given that the NOAA data set you cite (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/anomalies.php) covers 1880 through 2013 then we have ((2013-1880)+1)-17)+1 sequential 17 year trends or 118. Using the NOAA annual data in Excel and the Excel slope function we get 118 values, one for each year from 1896 to 2013.
The values range from a maximum absolute value of 0.023 for 17-year period ending in 2005 to a minimum absolute value of 0.000098 for the 17-year period ending in 1903 . The 17-year period ending in 2013 has an absolute slope value of 0.0047. It is ranked 92nd out of 118.
Given that the 17-year sequences are not independent I am not sure how to place a confidence interval around the population mean since it essentially contradicts the notion of what the confidence interval connotes.

RichardLH posts “The 17-year period ending is ranked 92nd out of 118.”

Thank you RichardLH … your calculations are entirely correct!

You have shown that the P-value associated to the null hypothesis “there is no pause” is (your numbers):

Please note that P-values greater than 0.05 are scientifically considered to be *NOT* statistically significant, for the common-sense reason that they occur too often by pure change.

The force of this statistical reality is redoubled when the period 17 years is cherry-picked from among other, equally plausible periods. Wikipedia’s article Bonferroni corrections will assist your quantitative understanding in this regard.

Conclusion from RichardLH’s independent calculations The following provide *ZERO* grounds to reject the hypothesis “global warming continues without pause”:

Fan: My statistics is rusty but I do not see the relevance of Bonferroni at all. The issue is certainly not multiple hypotheses but the lack of independence of the measures themselves and is not a simple degrees of freedom issue. Can you point me to an article that explores actual issue that you are addressing, namely comparisons of slopes of fixed length over an extended time period, that justifies your approach?
That said any simple and probably misleading comparison of the slope of temperature anomalies for the last 17-years is certainly significantly (p<.05) smaller than the average of the 118 slopes. So again I think you have grossly mis-specified the problem.

Fan:
This is utter nonsense. Cite the justification for your peculiar form of analysis. The absolute trend for the last 17 years is significantly below the average absolute trend for similar periods for the entire 1880-2013 period – though as I said I doubt the appropriateness of using a standard confidence interval as a significance test. Your 0.22 number has no meaning and no relevance for determining the nature and scope of the hiatus. You could get your 0.22 number if 26 of the 118 17-year series were 0.00000001 and the most recent was 0.000000013. The absolute size of the slope has meaning.

bernie1815 asserts [non-quantitively] “The absolute trend for the last 17 years is significantly below the average absolute trend in the 35th percentile of trends for similar periods for the entire 1880-2013 period.”

‘Here we apply a simple approach—that uses only sea surface temperature (SST) observations—to partly overcome this difficulty and perform retrospective decadal predictions with a climate model. Skill is improved significantly relative to predictions made with incomplete knowledge of the ocean state10, particularly in the North Atlantic and tropical Pacific oceans. Thus these results point towards the possibility of routine decadal climate predictions. Using this method, and by considering both internal natural climate variations and projected future anthropogenic forcing, we make the following forecast: over the next decade, the current Atlantic meridional overturning circulation will weaken to its long-term mean; moreover, North Atlantic SST and European and North American surface temperatures will cool slightly, whereas tropical Pacific SST will remain almost unchanged. Our results suggest that global surface temperature may not increase over the next decade, as natural climate variations in the North Atlantic and tropical Pacific temporarily offset the projected anthropogenic warming.’ http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7191/full/nature06921.html

Of course we could always look at science while climate crazies – seemingly crazier by the day – persist in praying to the climate Gods for a big El Nino this year. This is the manifestation of progressive denialism.

WHT: You’re the one with the computer problem. Seems like you think it knows something without being asked/told.

Computers games are not real you know.
”

RLH, I said that computers were designed by using models, starting from Ohm’s law, transitioning to the Ebers-Moll model of the transistor, and now to the massive simulations used in the design of every integrated circuit.

Because it does not? The work I have done is not based on anything else directly. It does not rely on the Stadium Wave for its observations. It does support what the Stadium Wave paper found so provides an affirmation of that result.

The same ~60 year signal is visible in a lot more than that one paper though. Some of which considerably pre-date it as well.

Firstly, thanks for the “sorry” good catch. I shouldn’t have allowed that “tone” in my e-mail. ?;-)

No I don’t want to supplant Einstein. But you can’t stand up for him in his absence, without making the same presumption, I don’t think. (fair?)

That doesn’t mean I think he, or I, or anyone is above question based on name or reputation even. any theory, and fact, has to stand on it’s own merit. a bum on the street can tell you 2+2 is 4, a slickster in a suit pulling in 200 G’s might tell you 2+3 is 4. the right answer is the right answer.

I did look at Michelson Morley. thank you. the math gets over my head, but I did notice that there was an associated mystery in their results to do with variations in the resulting wave based on time of day, noon or evening. I haven’t found an answer to that mystery, but would ask you to consider that if it is a time of day mystery, it is likely sun related.

As we have to “calibrate” clocks on spacecraft with different values, are we seeing time dilation or are we seeing “noon” or “evening” (solar influence). and mistaking it for time dilation.

Also on your research on cloud cover variations, I was interested in what you have found?? I think there is a strong chance they are forced by magnetic field strength, but I haven’t found much data on cloud cover variations yet. any insights??

Has anyone in the climate sciences thought to consider the movement of the magnetic poles. The magnetic north pole, for example is said to have moved 1100 km between 1900 and 1999. have we considered the possibility that this affects our analysis of ice core drillings? and the climate itself? there is a great map here: http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~dylan/mtpe/geosphere/whatis.html

Stefan,
Stop fooling yourself by reading the blog you referenced. John Tyndall’s experiments with IR absorption in 1859 showed the role of Greenhouse Gases in the atmosphere. It has been accepted by earth scientists ever since.

if we wanted to change the weather colder in the northern hemisphere, I believe we could. we have enough engineering that if we really wanted to, we could significantly block the bering strait. I think that would do it. If we want a better, warmer climate, I don’t know that there is anything we can do, other than move south, or wait for natural forces to take it that way, if you got patience. wont be in the next 40 years, I don’t think. ?;-)

eadler2 | March 3, 2014 at 3:19 pm said: ”Stefan, Stop fooling yourself John Tyndall’s experiments with IR absorption in 1859 showed the role of Greenhouse Gases in the atmosphere. It has been accepted by earth scientists ever since”

hello eadler2,

1] listen very carefully: John Tyndall did only half of the experiment: the other half is: CO2 ”releases heat faster than O2&N2!!! Therefore: CO2 makes cooler days / warmer nights – overall same temp, for example: metal gets hotter than wood exposed to the sunlight, BUT you all forget that: 12h is night / no sunlight – when CO2 or metal release more heat / faster than O2&N2 can. You touch a metal pipe at cold night and your skin will stick to it, same with dry ice.

Where CO2 goes up, there is always cold!!! that’s why ”dry ice” is made from CO2!!!

2] Those same ”earth scientists” in the 70’s were promoting: ”Nuclear Winter for year 2000 – because of CO2 ”dimming effect”. If you have already defrosted from those shonky criminal’s nuclear winter – you forgot that ”they” go where the money is. If the world knows what I know – those ”earth scientists” would be all in jail – so read my post and the rest on my blog, before commenting with phony confidence. Cheers!

Stefan,
Your claim that CO2 releases the heat it absorbs is correct, however you seem not to understand how the greenhouse effect works. The heat from the earth’s surface is radiated upward. as Infra red radiation. The CO2 absorbs this within a short distance from the surface and does re-emit it. The rate of emission depends on temperature. One half of the radiation is emitted in the downward direction. This will keep the surface of the earth warmer than it would be if the radiation it emitted traveled directly into space. The radiation traveling upward will be absorbed an re-emitted a number of times as it travels upward. It turns out as the radiation travels upward, the CO2 absorbing and re-emitting it is at a lower temperature because of the phenomenon known as the lapse rate, the higher it gets. Since the CO2 molecules at higher elevations are cooler the rate of emission of radiation is lower than at the surface. That is why satellite measurements of the radiation escaping the earth show a reduction in intensity at the emission spectrum of CO2, H2O and other Greenhouse gases. This is a graphic proof of the Greenhouse effect in action.

Stefan,
Your claim that scientists in the ’70’s were claiming that the earth would be getting colder due to CO2 is wrong. The mechanism was sulfur oxide particulates,i.e. aerosols. Actually more scientists were predicting future warming due to CO2 than cooling due to aerosols.

eadler2 | March 4, said: ”Stefan, Your claim that scientists in the ’70′s were claiming that the earth would be getting colder due to CO2 is wrong”

ealder, not that I just claim; it a fact; EVERY literature written in the 70’s will tell you that: ”the DIMMING effect” fom CO2 will block the sunlight, same as dust from many nuclear bombs would”

Find any work from then the most popular scientist on the global temp, prof Hubert Lamb, or any other, WRITTEN IN THE 70’s, NOT THE CON JOBS WRITTEN AFTER THE 80’S, put their by the leading warmistas, to mislead, try to cover up the past; for the young and shallow brains, on wiki & google !!!!!!!!!!!

“ealder, not that I just claim; it a fact; EVERY literature written in the 70′s will tell you that: ”the DIMMING effect” fom CO2 will block the sunlight, same as dust from many nuclear bombs would”

Find any work from then the most popular scientist on the global temp, prof Hubert Lamb, or any other, WRITTEN IN THE 70′s, NOT THE CON JOBS WRITTEN AFTER THE 80′S, put their by the leading warmistas, to mislead, try to cover up the past; for the young and shallow brains, on wiki & google !!!!!!!!!!!”

All I can find about what Lamb said in the 1970’s was that the earth would cool due to changes in the sun’s radiation output, not due to CO2. CO2 has been known since 1859 to warm the earth not cool it.

Ice Cores Reveal Past Trends
Late 1970s-early 1980s
“Looking at ice cores from Greenland spanning hundreds of centuries, scientists repeatedly saw telltale signs that giant volcanic eruptions of dust and sulfuric acid were followed by cooler temperatures in subsequent years. On a different but related front, other experts realized that sulfuric acid and other small particle sulfates could stay in the stratosphere for years, persisting much longer than larger particles. Sulfate aerosols, whether generated by volcanoes or by humans burning coal, oil, and other fossil fuels, now seemed likely culprits in climate cooling.”

eadler2 | March 5, 2014 at 10:24 am said: ”All I can find about what Lamb said in the 1970′s was that the earth would cool due”

ealder, I’m not good for finding things on the net b] I don’t trust what’s on wiki& google, BUT: if you are genially interested; there are regular posts on Steven Godards and australian climate madness” ask them they will show you. They have of cuts from newspapers. One thing you have to remember: ”if is printed, or REPRINTED from the 80’s until now – don’t trust it. – only original copies from newspapers. Everything ”reprinted” has being altered, to cover up their past lies. Leading warmist know that people will ”google” so they left there what suits them to be found

I was leaving in the 70’s and remember regularly on TV threatening the people with ice age / Nuclear Winter by year 2000, because of ”dimming effect”.

in broader picture: during the last century, there were ”3 predictions of ice age is round the corner” – ”4 global warmings soon” – and one nuclear winter effect for year 2000.

The truth: before Darwin published his book – it was: St Peter will be angry if you don’t pay 10% to the church – he will bring hailstorms, droughts and floods
b] after that, the shonky opportunist have taken the same tactic and – created phony past GLOBAL warmings, coolings. cycles, lots of crap – they can ”prevent” future warmings / coolings for big tax$$$

thew naked truth: warming of the WHOLE planet is not possible for more than a day. Warmings, coolings are ALWAYS LOCALIZED, presented as global, by the unscrupulous opportunistic shonks. That’s what the normal laws of physics say, and I can prove it, plus the time will prove it

It seems they shifted the goalposts away from 1950 onwards to 1900 onwards, despite the IPCC saying that 1900 to 1950 cannot be attributed to man. And of course they keep mentioning an ever-growing pile of evidence but apparently the only actual evidence they mention is the now discredited idea that natural variation alone cannot explain the rise by using models. Since natural variation is put forward as the prime reason for the lack of the 21st century rise they flat out contradict themselves and that is before you consider that models are clearly inadequate for the task due to wrong assumptions about that selfsame natural variability. Circular argumentation abounds.

Why though? Why are they so darn pessimistic when nature is screaming at them that their assumptions are wrong and that the models are running too hot? If their mission is to benefit society then they might consider how society benefits from higher fuel costs and more blackouts due to policy based on unfounded and contradictory speculation wrapped up in inadequate software.

“If their mission is to benefit society then they might consider how society benefits from higher fuel costs and more blackouts due to policy based on unfounded and contradictory speculation wrapped up in inadequate software.”

Obvious question. Answer: Those who make the rules get the ‘gold’–political power and the actual ‘gold’ that accrues from political power. The hundreds of billions of dollars that have gone towards ‘Fighting Global Climate Change (nee Global Warming)’ have gone somewhere; none of it to me. See the multiple iterations of Solyndra, including the ‘business’ established by VA’s esteemed new governor and the near-billionaire status of Nobel Al.

And the progressives who invented CAGW and established the Progressive_politician/Climate_science/Green Complex to exploit it are all about rules–with themselves making and enforcing the rules.

Look at it from their viewpoint: Controlling the ‘Carbon Footprint’ of everyone at all levels from individual to corporate is the Shangri-La of those (always progressives, by whatever euphemism du jour) who desire control. After all, what activity does anyone engage in in our high technology society that does NOT have a ‘carbon footprint’, thereby requiring taxing, regulating, and permitting. That is why, in the face of growing evidence that ACO2 has no measurable influence on the ‘climate’, however defined, they have gone to the mats to crush anyone who has the temerity–like our hostess–to even hint at the obvious.

James G,
Since the anthropogenic warming rate is about 0.2C/decade, and the noise in global average temperature is much greater than that in a given year, it is wrong to expect models based on average rates to give accurate short term predictions.
Over the long term, models have a better chance of predicting the behavior of the climate than you give them credit for.

You claim that CAGW was invented by progressives. This is not historically correct.

Joseph Fourier hypothesized global warming due to greenhouse gases in 1828. He was a pioneer in the theory of electromagnetic radiation and heat. John Tyndall verified his hypothesis by measuring the IR spectrum of greenhouse gases in 1859. Physics Nobel Prize winner, Svante Arrhenius made the first calculation of global warming due to doubling of CO2 by fossil fuel consumption, in 1896. In 1956 Gilbert Plass used a computer and more accurate spectral measurements to calculate the effect of CO2 by itself on global warming. These are the people who “invented human caused global warming”. So which of them do you claim are progressives, or is science intrinsically a progressive thing, which conservatives don’t have the intelligence to understand or create?

Actually history shows that opposition to global warming is based on politically motivated thinking by conservatives who oppose government regulation of all sorts. They funded conservative think tanks like the Heartland Institutes to oppose the idea that human activity was warming the planet, because they understood that worldwide government action would be needed to stop it from happening.

“The IPCC AR5 said the increase in Antarctic sea ice increase was poorly understood. Recent research shows that ozone hole cannot explain the sea ice decrease (actually works in the opposite direction). And natural variability can explain the Antarctic sea ice, but apparently not the Arctic sea ice?”

There are indeed papers on both sides of the effect of the ozone hole on Antarctic Sea Ice area.. A recent paper says that high winds circulating around Antarctica can explain most of the increase in Antarctic Sea ice area, which is much smaller than the Arctic Sea Ice decrease which dwarfs the small sea ice increase in Antarctica.

The wind and ocean current patterns are different in that Arctic and Antarctic regions. In Antarctica the South Pole is a land area surrounded by Ocean, and Arctic the Ocean covers the pole and is mostly surrounded by land. In the Antarctic wind and ocean currents circulate around the South Pole from west to east. In the Arctic the pattern is more complex and involves flow North-South and South-North.

The sarcasm in Dr Curry’s remark was inappropriate and she should know better.

I don’t think anyone has studied the potential ramifications of the magnetic north pole being 1100 km closer to the center of the polar ice, than it was in 1900. energy flows from the sun, into the earth at the magnetic poles. One evidence of this is the northern lights. To not explore the effects this could have on polar ice, and climate would seem shortsighted to me. (sounds like an overall indictment of popular climate science to me). magnetism DEFINITELY affects things. I don’t think this should be being ignored.

I don’t know if anyone yet has tried to calculate what effect the wandering magnetic poles have on sea ice. they move a lot, and some years more than others. the north magnetic pole has been sometimes over land, sometimes over water. and the last while been getting farther and farther from land. but I don’t suggest the land/water makes a difference. just pointing out a possibility. the south pole had been over land for quite a while, and just hit water around 1970 or so, is getting farther from the rotational (geo-something) pole.

Thanks, Alistair, take your time. No complicated math, but many precise experimental measurements that indicate the entire solar system formed directly from heterogeneous debris of a supernova explosion five billion years (5 Ga) ago.

NASA’s active opposition to this information was recorded by a CSPAN news video on 7 Jan 1998: